Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Coody, 448 So. 2d 100.

46 citing documents.

State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Engle 213 So. 3d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
nce test “considers the actual physical and testimonial evidence necessary to secure a conviction, and concerns itself with the „evidential focus‟ of the facts adduced at trial in light of the verdict rendered, i.e., how the evidence satisfies the prosecution‟s burden of proof.” State v. Williams, 07-0931, p. 5 (La.2/26/08), (-03 (La.1984).
State v. Ball 209 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2/26/08), (-03 (La.1984).
State of Louisiana v. Skylar Frank La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
See also, and State v. Gibson, 03-0647 (La.App.
State v. Lodge 195 So. 3d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The same evidence test “considers the actual physical and testimonial evidence necessary to secure a conviction, and concerns itself with the ‘evidential focus’ of the facts adduced at trial in light of the verdict rendered, i.e., how the evidence satisfies the prosecution’s- burden of proof.” State v. Williams, 07-0931, p. 5 (La.2/26/08), (-03 (La.1984).
State v. Frank 192 So. 3d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See also, and State v. Gibson, 03-0647 (La.App.
State v. Fairman 173 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Magee 146 So. 3d 193 La. 2014
-03 (La.1984); see also State v. Roberts, 152 La.
State of Louisiana v. Alex P. Papillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions the test to be applied to determine whether there are two different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”
State v. Papillion 63 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions the test to be applied to determine whether there are two different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”
State v. Williams 978 So. 2d 895 La. 2008
State v. Robertson 988 So. 2d 166 La. 2008
They reasoned that since this Court in Skipper affirmed the quashing of the entire Bill of Information, then we “apparently agreed that both charges should be quashed.
State v. Smith 952 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Timothy E. Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Robertson 931 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Ruiz 931 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Donald Cogswell, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
See also, and State v. Gibson, 03-0647 (La.App.
State v. Cogswell 918 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
See also, and State v. Gibson, 03-0647 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. John Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
.” and, citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct.
State v. Joseph 916 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
and, citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct.
State v. Rabun 880 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Baptiste 875 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Pierce 799 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. Burnett 768 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Bailey 713 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Sandifer 679 So. 2d 1324 La. 1996
State v. Smith 676 So. 2d 1068 La. 1996
State v. Coates 661 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Marshall 660 So. 2d 819 La. 1995
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross 654 So. 2d 1311 La. 1995
Art. 495, 532(3); -104 (La.1984).
State v. Powell 598 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. Miller 571 So. 2d 603 La. 1990
State v. Perret 563 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Neal 550 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Caillouet 528 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Reed 499 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Buttner 489 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Claiborne 483 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Holmes 475 So. 2d 1057 La. 1985
State v. Dubaz 468 So. 2d 554 La. 1985
State v. Perez 464 So. 2d 737 La. 1985
[3] An example of charging a public official with malfeasance for failing to perform a
State v. Haltom 462 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984