Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Frank, 679 So. 2d 1365.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jason Ray Craft La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
State v. Willie 235 So. 3d 1339 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/4/96), , 1366; Williams, 841 So.2d at 942 ).
State v. Barbain 179 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Odenbaugh, 10-0268, p. 6 (La.12/6/11), (noting that “there is a presumption of sanity, and before the court is required to appoint a sanity commission, the defendant has the burden to establish his incapacity to stand trial by a clear preponderance of the evidence.”); Bridgewater , 00-1529 at p. 14, 823 So.2d at 892 ; State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), (stating that it is a “jurisprudential rule that a criminal defendant need prove his | ^incapacity to proceed only by a clear prepond
State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
1373, 1384 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996); State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Griffin 30 So. 3d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Edwards 17 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
art. 652; State v. Bridgewater, 2000-1529 (La.1/15/02), ; State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96)
State v. Gibson 993 So. 2d 1193 La. 2008
1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996)(states may require the accused to prove his incompetency to stand trial only by a preponderance of the evidence; a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence" violates the Due Process Clause); State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), ( Cooper invalidated 1990 La.
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
State v. Frank, 96-1136, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
State v. Frank, 96-1136, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Franks 975 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Dupree 950 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), [citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Rankin 938 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), [citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Ford 930 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Bridgewater, 2000-1529 (La.1/15/02), ; State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Snyder 874 So. 2d 739 La. 2004
State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Carmouche 872 So. 2d 1020 La. 2003
State v. Frank, 96-1136, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 831 So. 2d 835 La. 2002
1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996); see State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), (" Cooper has returned Louisiana to this Court's jurisprudential rule that a criminal defendant need prove his incapacity to proceed only by a clear *860 preponderance of the evidence."
State v. Moore 827 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (states may require the accused to prove his incompetency to stand trial only by a preponderance of the evidence; a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence" violates the Due Process Clause); State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), ( Cooper invalidates 1990 La.
State v. Frank 758 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In light of Cooper , the Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs in this matter and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial of the competency hearing to determine whether the defendant had proved his mental ineompetency to proceed to trial by a “clear preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96); .
State v. Hernandez 735 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
See also, State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Revader 735 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Defendant further relies on the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), , which held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (states may require the accused to prove his incompetency to stand trial only by a preponderance of the evidence; a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence" violates the Due Process Clause); State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), ( Cooper invalidates 1990 La.
State v. Picot 718 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), , the Court stated that based on Cooper , La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Evans 715 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
10/4/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court declared: The Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Campbell 715 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), , the Louisiana State Supreme Court held that the decision in Cooper applied to supersede La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Burmaster 710 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96); , our supreme court found that Cooper made it clear that: La.C.Cr.P.
State v. LeBlanc 702 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
art. 648A provides in pertinent part: “The criminal prosecution shall [not] be resumed unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant does not have the mental capacity to proceed.” In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court declared: |2The Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Gaines 701 So. 2d 688 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
In State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), , the Court in a per curiam decision noted that the decision in Cooper applied to La.C.Cr.P.