Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Noble, 425 So. 2d 734.

44 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. El Jerico Jermiah Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus John Spears La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
1981)); whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime (See, (La.
In re State in Interest of J.S. 268 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Bradstreet 196 So. 3d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Byrd 119 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 12/30/08), ; (it can be inferred from fact that a defendant shot the victim in the head |3from close range that he actively desired that death would follow); State v. Johnson, 2008-1488, p. 10 (La.
State v. Carmouche 117 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See, (pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill); (same).
State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
See, (pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill); (same).
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Slang, 94-332, p. 4 (La.App.
State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
that it is “settled jurisprudence that specific intent to kill may be inferred from the act of pointing a gun and firing at a person in close proximity.” Lewis, 2009-1404, p. 5, 48 So.3d at 1076 (emphasis added) ( (“pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill”); (“same”)); see also State v. Hoffman, 98-3118, p. 48 (La.4/11/00), .
State v. Alsay 81 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Templet, 05-2623 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
4 Cir. 1988) (a witness saw the defendant shoot the victim in the foot before he shot her in the back), (witnesses testified as to the defendant’s erratic behavior toward the victim prior to the shooting), (La.App.
State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
4 Cir.1988) (a witness saw the defendant shoot the victim in the foot before he shot her in the back), (witnesses testified as to the defendant's erratic behavior toward the victim prior to the shooting), (La.App.
State v. Lewis 48 So. 3d 1073 La. 2010
See, (pointing and firing a gun at point-blank range supports an inference of specific intent to kill); (same).
State v. Reddick 670 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Franklin 648 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime ( State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d at 774 ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( ), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( (La.
State v. Slang 646 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Tatum, 506 So.2d at 584 .
State v. Buchanan 649 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Bibb 626 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
They include whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon , 395 at 774), whether the experts specifically concluded that the defendant could not discern between right and wrong at the time of the crime ( State v. Claibon , 395 So.2d at 774 ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( ), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( , (
State v. Williams 625 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
the defendant was convicted of second degree murder, and the Court held that from the fact that the defendant shot the victim in the head at close range, it could be inferred that he actively desired death to follow.
State v. Pittman 604 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Jackson 548 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
As revealed in prior cases grappling with this topic, they include whether lay testimony controverting the expert opinion was offered ( State v. Claibon, supra, at 774 ; State v. Roy, supra, at 669 ), State v. Claibon, supra ), to what extent the expert testimony was premised on the self-serving revelations of the defendant ( ), to what extent the expert analysis is controverted by other expert analysis ( State v. Heath, supra, at 576 ), the duration of t
State v. Talbert 543 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Trahan 543 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Perkins 540 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Latchie 535 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Shannon 531 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Pier 530 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Tatum 506 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Banks 496 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Bickman 480 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Quinn 479 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Collatt 477 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979); (La.
State v. Bell 471 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Ford 467 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Mullins 464 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State in the Interest of Aaron, (La.App.
State v. Smith 461 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Payne 461 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Morgan 454 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Nealy 450 So. 2d 634 La. 1984
3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979)
State v. Harrison 446 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Shields 444 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
as follows: A legal presumption exists that the defendant is sane and responsible for his actions.
State v. Laprime 437 So. 2d 1124 La. 1983
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
State v. Massey 436 So. 2d 522 La. 1983