Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Armstrong, 671 So. 2d 307.

24 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Rogelio Ledezma La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Casey Michael Hatch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
4/8/96), wherein the supreme court overturned a conviction for second degree murder after finding the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Teasley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State v. David Arthur Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
State v. Devillier 258 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/8/96), , 313, for the contention that the most significant evidence of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong in many insanity cases is evidence of the accused's attempts to hide evidence of the crime.
State of Louisiana v. Timothy Aaron Dangerfield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
4/8/96), the supreme court noted: [T[he defense’s case on insanity consisted of the twenty-five year history of mental illness with delusions, auditory hallucinations, religious obsessions and occasional psychotic episodes, particularly when defendant was subjected to stress or failed to take his
State v. Dangerfield 214 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/8/96), , the supreme court noted: , [T[he defense’s case on insanity consisted óf the twenty-five year history of mental illness with delusions,' auditory hallucinations, religious obsessions and occasional psychotic episodes, particularly when defendant was subjected to stress or failed to take his medication; the test
State of Louisiana v. John W. Hatfield, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
art. 652; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, pp. 4-5 (La.4/8/96), State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), State v. Peters, 94-0283, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/94), -26.
State v. Butler 197 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Armstrong, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Peters, 94-0283 (La.10/17/94), ; State v. Sepulvado, 26,948 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/95), , writ denied, 95-1437 (La.11/13/95), .
State v. Holder 181 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Armstrong, 1994-2950 (La.04/08/96), ; State v. Peters, 1994-0283 (La.10/17/94), .
State v. Barbain 179 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
supra, (citing State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529, p. 6 (La.1/15/02), ; State v. Martin, 00-0489, p. 1 (La.9/22/00), ; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman; 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), .).
State v. Dean 140 So. 3d 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 652; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96), .
State of Louisiana v. Joel T. Bailey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
art. 652; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, pp. 4-5 (La.4/8/96), State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), State v. Peters, 94-0283, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/94), -26.
State of Louisiana v. Harold Dewayne Baylor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
9/22/00),] 769 So.2d [1168] at 1169; State v. Armstrong, 94- 2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96)
State v. Bailey 92 So. 3d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 652; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, pp. 4-5 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), ; State v. Peters, 94-0283, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/94), -26 .
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
15:432; State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529, p. 6 (La.1/15/02), ; Martin, 00-01489 at p. 1, 769 So.2d at 1169; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), .
State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
art. 652; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, pp. 4-5 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), ; State v. Peters, 94-0283, pp. 8-9 (La.10/17/94), -26 .
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
15:432; State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529, p. 6 (La.1/15/02), ; [ State v. ] Martin [, 00-0489,]at p. 1 [(9/22/00)], 769 So.2d [1168] at 1169; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), .
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
15:432; State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529, p. 6 (La.1/15/02), ; Martin at p. 1 , 769 So.2d at 1169 ; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), .
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
15:432 [9] ; State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529, p. 6 (La.1/15/02), ; Martin at p. 1 , 769 So.2d at 1169 ; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950, p. 4 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154, p. 7 (La.11/27/95), .
State v. Reese 774 So. 2d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Armstrong, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96), ; State v. Silman, 95-0154 (La.11/27/95), ; State v. Odom, 33,340 (La.App.
State v. Appacrombie 766 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Compare, State v. Armstrong, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96), .
State v. Akins 687 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
3 Cir. 11/2/94) , , reversed on other grounds, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96), , this court held, “[t]he issue as to the propriety of closing argument remarks is not preserved for review where defense counsel makes no objection to the statement either during or after the argument.” Thus, defendant has not properly preserved this issue for review.
State v. Pittman 683 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
15:432; State v. Armstrong, 94-2950 (La.4/8/96) .