Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Banks, 694 So. 2d 401.

31 citing documents.

State v. Bibbins 140 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 1/15/97), , 406 n. 2, this Court applied the same rationale when reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to quash.
State of Louisiana v. Israel M. Beverly La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 1/15/97), ), writ denied, 05-1218 (La.
State v. Beverly 93 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , ), writ denied, 05-1218 (La.
State v. Robinson 81 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State ex rel. C.J. 60 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Bess 47 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Ramirez 30 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 1/15/97), n. 2 , this Court applied the same rationale when reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to quash.
State v. Martin 996 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Rubin 899 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
App. 5 Cir. 1/15/97), -11 , the court stated that: [I]n the prosecution of an armed robbery, the state need not prove that the property taken was owned by the victim; it is only essential that the accused was not the owner, and that the victim had a greater right to the item than did the accused.
State of Louisiana v. Jordie Kenry Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 1/15/97), -11, the court stated that: [I]n the prosecution of an armed robbery, the state need not prove that the property taken was owned by the victim; it is only essential that the accused was not the owner, and that the victim had a greater right to the item than did
State v. Parker 901 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Falkins 880 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , -411 , cited by both the State and the defendants, Dwight Dedeaux, the alleged armed robbery victim, did not testify at defendant's trial.
State v. Spivey 874 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Crawford 873 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , , where the prosecutor stated that he was excluding a potential juror because, inter alia, he was wearing gold jewelry and dressed in a T-shirt).
State v. Stewart 866 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , ; and State v. Durham, 94-1036 (La.App.
State v. Perrilloux 864 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , (gold jewelry and T-shirt and alleged he was disabled); State v. Jones, 98-842 (La.App.
State v. Jackson 860 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Duplessy 853 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , -409 ; State v. Galliano, 96-1736 (La.App.
State v. Wallis 807 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Joseph 802 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Johnson 783 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Carter 779 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Coleman 756 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Matthews v. Arkla Lubricants Inc. 740 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
5th Cir. 01/15/97), ; State v. Dabney, 91-2051 (La.App.
State v. Robinson 744 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. McCormick 737 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
5 Cir. 1/15/97) , , the court, as in Sanford , stated: [I]n the prosecution of an armed robbery, the state need not prove that the property taken was owned by the victim; it is only essential that the accused was not the owner, and that the victim had a greater right to the item than did the accused.
State v. Guy 737 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Nogess 729 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Jones 729 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5th Cir. 1/15/97), -409 .
State v. Jackson 707 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
App. 5th Cir. 01/15/97), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by