Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Arnold, 548 So. 2d 920.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Alexsy Mejia La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
App. 4 Cir. 4/6/16), ( (La.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.F.. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State v. Mathis 263 So. 3d 613 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Amos 192 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the crucial question in determining whether an aggravated kidnapping has occurred is “whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.” see State v. Leger, 2005-0011, p. 96 (La.7/10/06), .
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Leger, 2005-0011, p. 98 (La.7/10/06), (), ("[T]he question and the issue to be focused upon is whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.”) .
State v. Johnson 175 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Ashley, 44,655 (La.App.2d Cir.09/23/09), , writ denied, | n2009-2305 (La.04/23/10), .
State v. Gibson 197 So. 3d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
by playing on upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain óompliance with his demands.”
State v. Baker 166 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
2 Cir. 9/23/98), , writ denied, 99-1191 (La.9/24/99), ; (La.
State v. Seaton 112 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Hill, 40,023 (La.App.2d Cir.9/21/05), .
State of Louisiana v. Brian Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
hether the defendant intended to release the victim at either the outset of the crime or indeed at any point during the crime, but ―whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.‖
State v. Segura 129 So. 3d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
dnapping has occurred is not whether the defendant intended to release the victim at either the outset of the crime or indeed at any point during the crime, but “whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.”
State v. Patton 68 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Garcia 26 So. 3d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
dnapping has occurred is not whether the defendant intended to release the victim at either the outset of the crime or indeed at any point during the crime, but “whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.”
State v. Ashley 22 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
ing has occurred is not whether the defendant intended to release the victim at either the outset of the crime or indeed at any point during the crime but “whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to *1054 gain compliance with his demands.”
State v. Henderson 945 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Leger 936 So. 2d 108 La. 2006
State v. Hill 911 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Manning 885 So. 2d 1044 La. 2004
this Court held that a defendant commits the offense of aggravated kidnapping when he abducts the victim with the intent to extort something of value, including sex, by playing upon the victim's hope of release.
State v. Lagarde 861 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Will 860 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
1 Cir.1993), writ denied, 00-2188 (La.4/12/01), ().
State v. George 855 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Williams 842 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
(cited in Bowie ) ("[a] robber's moving a victim at knife point from one room to another for the purpose of opening a safe arguably should not be punished as a kidnapping.").
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
State v. Davillier, 99 1204, (La.12/10/99), (relocating a victim from one side of a truck to the other does not satisfy the substantial coerced movement from the immediate physical environment in which the assault occurs and does not constitute second degree kidnapping); , (La.1989) ("[a] robber's moving a victim at knife point from one room to another for the purpose of opening a safe arguably should not be punished as a kidnapping.").
State v. Jagers 786 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Bilbo, 97-2189, p. 11 (La.App.
State v. Zihlavsky 764 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Brooks 765 So. 2d 993 La. 1999
State v. Berry 735 So. 2d 618 La. 1999
Stat. 14:44; or whether they simply intended to move them out of the way for purposes of facilitating the murder of Evans which followed immediately thereafter.
State v. Castleberry 758 So. 2d 749 La. 1999
(seizure and transportation of a person from one place to another for purposes of facilitating the commission of another offense constitutes aggravated kidnaping).
State v. Roberts 718 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Overby 714 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Shipp 712 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Lagrange 702 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Foster 647 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Acevedo 633 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
and we have only to determine whether Ms. Plemer believed she would be released upon gratification of Acevedo's demands.
State v. Roblow 623 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
when the state relies upon the "forcible seizing" provision of the aggravated kidnapping statute, the state is required to prove the following elements to establish the offense: 1.
State v. Essex 618 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Moran 584 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991