Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Celestine, 671 So. 2d 896.

20 citing documents.

State v. Williams 199 So. 3d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
9 See State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.01/26/96), .
State in the Interest of C.D. 93 So. 3d 1272 La. 2012
ority to consider this claim because the failure of the state’s case on an essential element of the offense charged, in the present case, delivery of the heroin to Mary Charles by defendant, remains subject 110to review “regardless of how the error is brought to the attention of the reviewing court.” see State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), (in narcotics cases, distribution is “defined as the ‘delivery’ or transfer of possession and control over controlled substances.”)(citing La.R.S.
State v. Terrance 80 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Pierre, supra.
State v. Jones 983 So. 2d 95 La. 2008
In State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/23/96), , the defendant was convicted of distribution of cocaine and obstruction of justice when, as a result of a "reversesting" operation, the defendant purchased six rocks of crack cocaine from an undercover agent posing as a dealer, and upon immediate arrest, threw the rocks into the air and only one could be located from
State v. Smith 952 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), (per curiam)(and cases cited therein).
State v. Hano 938 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Celestine, 95-1393, pp. 3-5 (La.1/26/96), -898 (per curiam)(and cases cited).
State v. Gordon 928 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[10] State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Pierre, 03-1306, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Mazique 919 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Brown, 05-102, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Brown 904 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), ; 897.
State v. Corbett 888 So. 2d 764 La. 2004
State v. Smith 885 So. 2d 508 La. 2004
Applying the rule in Louisiana that a buyer of a controlled substance in Louisiana is not a principal in the act of delivery and may not be charged with distribution of the drug, State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), , the court of appeal ordered the prosecution quashed and the defendant discharged from custody because the state's allegations showed that she did not "distribute" the ecstasy which ultimately caused the victim's demise and did not, as a mere possessor and user of the drug, hav
State v. Corbett 879 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Celestine, 1995-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), (per curiam)(and cases cited therein).
State v. Pierre 869 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Black 864 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Stewart 815 So. 2d 14 La. 2002
See State v. Celestine, 95 1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), ("In Louisiana, an intermediary who arranges or facilitates the transfer of narcotics from the seller to the buyer may ...
State v. Black 786 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
3rd Cir.1987); State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), ; (La.App.
State v. Nichols 772 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), , addressed the law of principals under LSA-R.S.
State v. McGee 757 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Celestine, 95-1393 (La.1/26/96), .
State v. Bradford 745 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
1st Cir.1992), writ denied, (1993), overruled on other grounds
State v. Trepagnier 744 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 5 (La.1/26/96), .