DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cheatwood, 458 So. 2d 907.

68 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Derrick Bracken La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael T. Robinson Denzel West Kirk Powell La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • Stanford Barnett v. the Arc of Acadiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    we stated that “justification” defenses “are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds [; hence,] such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the ac
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel E. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    14:16 the court stated at n. 4 (emphasis in original): In Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cody Nicholas Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    (footnote omitted), the supreme court discussed justification, affirmative defenses, and the burden of proof thereon as follows: A person’s otherwise criminal conduct may be justified under certain circumstances.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Wayne Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Ross 269 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    In State v. Cheatwood , (La.
  • State ex rel. W.V. 246 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    4 Cir. 9/22/04), , 606-07 ( , 910 (La.
  • William Terry Ebarb and Dewanna N. Ebarb v. Unopened Succ. of Alfair Jones Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3rd Cir.1985), or, in the criminal context, “justification,” 910 n. 4 (La.1984), neither of which concern legal and factual questions raised by plaintiff’s petition (or the state’s indictment), but which instead raise another legally sufficient ground to defeat an action, Reliance’s proffered testimony aims directly at an essential element of the
  • Norman Michael Sepulvado v. William Terry Ebarb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3rd Cir.1985), or, in the criminal context, “justification,” 910 n. 4 (La.1984), neither of which concern legal and factual questions raised by plaintiff’s petition (or the state’s indictment), but which instead raise another legally sufficient ground to defeat an action, Reliance’s proffered testimony aims directly at an essential element of the
  • Ebarb v. Unopened Succession Sepulvado 241 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    3rd Cir.1985), or, in the criminal context, "justification," see State v. Cheatwood , , 910, 910 n. 4 (La.1984), neither of which concern legal and factual questions raised by plaintiff's petition (or the state's indictment), but which instead raise another legally sufficient ground to defeat an action, Reliance's proffered testimony aims directly at an essential element of the purchasers' claim (causa
  • State v. Barron 243 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    In State v. Cheatwood , (La.
  • State v. Abbott 222 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Allen 177 So. 3d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State ex rel. M.J. 160 So. 3d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    the Louisiana Supreme Court opined that justification defenses based on “circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds” should be “treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence.” 458 So.2d at 910 .
  • State v. Broussard 149 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mills 153 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Jeanfreau, 11-1237 (La.App.
  • State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the burden of proof when justification is offered as a defense.
  • State of Louisiana v. Paul David Heider La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    for the principle that the distinction he draws leads to separate burdens of proof.
  • State v. Heider 101 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    for the principle that the distinction he draws leads to separate burdens of proof.
  • State v. Jones 99 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Carter 96 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Morrison 55 So. 3d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Brazil, 34,341 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), ; State v. Shed, 36,321 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), , writ denied, 02-3123 (La.12/19/03), .
  • State v. Black 41 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
  • State v. Stukes 19 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Richard W. Black La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    The supreme court, stated, “Since ‘justification’ defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish b
  • State v. CSD 4 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. C.S.D. & E.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    “Since ‘justification’ defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused's conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Louis Hayes, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    “Since ‘justification’ defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence.”
  • State v. NIONS 952 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
  • State v. Qualls 921 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Shed, supra ; State v. Brazil, 34,341 (La.App.2d Cir.4/4/01), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Steven Russell Sedlock La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    “Since ‘justification’ defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused’s conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a preponderance of evidence.”
  • State v. Sedlock 882 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Wischer 885 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Crawford 873 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Steele 829 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    See: State in the Interest of M.L., 95-0045 (La.9/5/95)
  • State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Brazil, 34,341 (La.App.
  • State v. Shed 828 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    State v. Brazil, 34,341 (La.
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Harry 823 So. 2d 987 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
  • State v. King 799 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    stated, "Since `justification' defenses are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on the circumstances which make the accused's conduct excusable on policy grounds, such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by a
  • State in the Interest of M.L. 761 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    She cites State in the Interest of M.L., 95-45 (La.9/5/95); to buttress her right to assert this affirmative defense.
  • State Ex Rel. Ml 761 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    She cites State in the Interest of M.L., 95-45 (La.9/5/95); to buttress her right to assert this affirmative defense.
  • State v. Miller 746 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rainey 722 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    reasoned that self-defense or defense of others is similar to the type of affirmative defenses discussed in Cheatwood , and held that in a non-homicide case, the burden to prove self-defense, or defense of another by a preponderance of the evidence shifts to the defendant.
  • State v. Riser 704 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    the court made observations in a footnote regarding the burden of proof for such defenses in the criminal context and concluded as follows: The statutory provisions setting forth the state's burden of proof refer only to the requirement that the state prove the elements of the crime — not that the state dis
  • State v. Smith 697 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    14:76, is an affirmative defense and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, (La.
  • State v. Carter 684 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    3rd Cir.1984); physical impossibility, entrapment, -84 (La.
  • State v. Piazza 668 So. 2d 1125 La. 1996
  • State in Interest of ML 660 So. 2d 830 La. 1995
    we stated that "justification" defenses "are not based on the nonexistence of any essential element of the offense, but rather on circumstances which make the accused's conduct excusable on policy grounds [; hence,] such defenses should be treated as affirmative defenses which the accused must establish by