Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. LeBlanc, 506 So. 2d 1197.

44 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. James Russel Johnson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Authur Johnson La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State v. Duhon 270 So. 3d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1987) ; *621 State v. Leblanc , , 1201 (La.
State v. Lewis 260 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Brooks 258 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. McClendon 228 So. 3d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Darrell Kennedy Mallette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Mallette 193 So. 3d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
| ^Defendant notes the supreme court ciarí-
State v. Domangue 119 So. 3d 690 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Davis 108 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Terry 108 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
14:81.2; State v. Watson, *143 39,362 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/05), ; State v. Elzie, 37,920 (La.App.2d Cir.1/28/04), , writ denied, 04-2289 (La.2/04/05), .
State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Michael Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
orce, Violence, Duress, Menace, Psychological Intimidation, Threat of Great Bodily Harm: “Properly construed, the ‘use of force’ element refers to the forcible means of overcoming the will or resistance of the victim, and this additional essential element requires a use of force in addition to any mere touching or minimum effort exerted in performing the lewd act.” State v. Leblanc,1
State v. Redfearn 22 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. *1087 Leblanc, State v. Ellis, 38,740 (La.App.
State v. Pugh 12 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
8 the supreme court held that the “use of force” element requires proof of *1090 force “substantially greater than or substantially different from the force which is necessary to commit the less serious offense of indecent behavior with juveniles.” Article 611(A) states that if acts constituting an offense or
State v. Simpkins 12 So. 3d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
| if,First, molestation requires proof of the “use of force.” the supreme court stated: Some minimum degree of force or physical effort is required to commit the lewd act which is an essential element of the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile.
State v. McGee 5 So. 3d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Ardoin 6 So. 3d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Strother 990 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
the supreme court held that the "use of force" element required proof of the use of force "substantially greater than or substantially different from the force which is necessary to commit the less serious offense of indecent behavior with a juvenile."
State of Louisiana v. Tommy Cloud La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
The Defendant further maintains that indecent behavior with a juvenile is a lesser and included offense of molestation of a juvenile, citing State v. Leblanc, 6
State v. Cloud 946 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
The Defendant further maintains that indecent behavior with a juvenile is a lesser and included offense of molestation of a juvenile
State v. Watson 900 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
14:81.2; State v. Elzie, 37,920 (La.App.2d Cir.1/28/04), , writ denied, 2004-2289 (La.2/4/05), .
State of Louisiana v. Samuel Glenn Teague La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Teague 893 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Ellis 880 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Onstead 875 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Elzie 865 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Breaux, 02-382 (La.
State v. Breaux 830 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Stec 749 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
*788 The Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether this type of touching could support a conviction for attempted indecent behavior with a
State v. Harp 708 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Busby 653 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
3d Cir.), modified, (La.
State v. Free 643 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Bourque 622 So. 2d 198 La. 1993
(in the absence of contemporaneous objection, the defendant's complaint that the jury charge was confusing does not present an issue reviewable on appeal).
State v. Ragas 607 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Florant 602 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Harrison 598 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
for the proposition that “the extra requirement of an element of force ‘above and beyond that force or effort necessary to commit the lewd act upon the person’ was necessary.” The defendant is apparently arguing that a greater force than a minimum force is necessary here.
State v. Temple 572 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Stamm 569 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Davis 546 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Shelton 545 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Roberts 541 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Arvie, 505 So.2d *966 44 (La.1987)
State v. Schenck 513 So. 2d 1159 La. 1987
State v. Mack 514 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Defendant, contends the State failed to establish that he used “force, violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, or threat of great bodily harm” in having the victim engage in the sexual act.