Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Walters, 440 So. 2d 115.

27 citing documents.

State v. Banks 240 So. 3d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
See State v. Walters , , 121 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Michael Wayne Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
art. 61; State v. Flores, 27,736 (La.App.2d Cir.02/28/96)
State v. Jones 105 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 61; State v. Flores, 27,736 (La.App.
State v. Chandler 939 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
2198 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979); City of Baton Rouge v. Williams, 95-0308 (La.10/16/95)
State of Louisiana v. Parnell Poche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Poche 924 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Patout 812 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Lewis 776 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
When presented with the issue of whether obscenity was in the nature of an attempt, -121 (La.1983), concluded otherwise, and elaborated: Obscenity under Section 106A(1) is not an inchoate offense, since it requires *1164 the act of "exposure."
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
When presented with the issue of whether obscenity was in the nature of an attempt, -121 (La.1983), concluded otherwise, and elaborated: Obscenity under Section 106A(1) is not an inchoate offense, since it requires the act of "exposure."
State v. Craig 747 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
art. 61; State v. Flores, 27,736 (La.
State v. Winston 723 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Flores 669 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Albert 666 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
|3The Louisiana Supreme Court, had an opportunity to interpret “public place,” as used in La.R.S.
State v. Larson 653 So. 2d 1158 La. 1995
State v. Russland Enterprises 555 So. 2d 1365 La. 1990
State v. Odom 554 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Arabie 507 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Shaheen 488 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Louisiana Toy Co., Inc. 483 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Moreover, because a pre-arrest adversary hearing is not constitutionally required, and because states have broad powers to regulate obscenity, the Legislature was free to achieve its purposes by any rational procedures, including exceptions to the hearing provision.
State v. Stout 470 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Jacobson 459 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Young 457 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
eutral ground, sidewalk, beach, river bank or other place or location viewable therefrom....” On rehearing the court “determined that the legislature had intended to include only places like parks, sidewalks, parking lots, roads and the like, and not to include buildings and other commercial establishments open to *206 the public, such as supermarkets and department stores.”
State v. Davis 453 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Kellogg 452 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Mancini 449 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
n to the public view with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to *119 prurient interest or is patently offensive.” The trial judge reasoned that the legislative intent of the statutory wording “the” genitals is the exposer’s own genitals (at least in this context), and that a locked booth is not a
State v. Strong 446 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
that “[t]he statute requires the state to prove that the offender acted with a specific intent to arouse sexual desire, either of the actor or of the viewer ” (emphasis added).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by