Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 748 So. 2d 1139.

28 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Justin Lee Warner La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
10/ 29/ 99), per curiam) ( citing State v. Lozier, 375 So.
State of Louisiana v. Corday Treveil Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
general principle of accessorial liability [is] that when two or more persons embark on a concerted course of action, each person becomes responsible for not only his own acts but also for the acts of the other, including “ ‘deviations from the common plan which are the foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan.’ ” State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave and Austin Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 7.5, p. 212 (1986)).
State of Louisiana v. Debbie E. Adams AKA Debbie Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Johnson 185 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Acker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
nt a general principle of accessorial liability that when two or more persons embark on a concerted course of action, each person becomes responsible for not only his own acts but also for the acts of the other, including “ „deviations from the common plan which are the foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan.‟ ” State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave and Austin Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 7.5, p. 212 (1986)).
State v. Acker 111 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
that matter, takes into account a general principle of accessorial liability that when two or more persons embark on a concerted course of action, each person becomes responsible for not only his own acts but also for the acts of the other, including “ ‘deviations from the common plan which are the foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan.’ ” State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave and Austin Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 7.5, p. 212 (1986)).
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 5/29/07), , writ denied, 07-1463 (La.1/7/08), (citing State v. Smith, 98-2078, *553 p. 7 (La.10/29/99), ).
State v. Smith 23 So. 3d 291 La. 2009
that matter, takes into account a general principle of accessorial liability that when two or more persons embark on a concerted course of action, each person becomes responsible for not only his own acts but also for the acts of the other, including “ ‘deviations from the common plan which are the foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan.’ ” State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), (quoting 2 Wayne R. LaFave and Austin Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 7.5, p. 212 (1986)).
State v. Noel 997 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 8 (La.10/29/99), (per curiam).
State in the Interest of D. A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482, 98 S.Ct.
State ex rel. D. A. 995 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), , quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 , 98 S.Ct.
State Ex Rel. Da 995 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), , quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 , 98 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Francis Loncar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Citing State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), the Wiley court further noted that [h]owever, under general principles of accessorial liability, “all parties [to a crime] are guilty for deviations from the common plan which are foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan .
State v. LONCAR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Citing State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), , the Wiley court further noted that [h]owever, under general principles of accessorial liability, "all parties [to a crime] are guilty for deviations from the common plan which are foreseeable consequences of carrying out the plan .
State v. McFarland 960 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
See, State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), , internal citations omitted.
State v. Baker 902 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. Burford 902 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Gretchen also argues the trial court was in error to consider the dismissed aggravated burglary charge, because her entry into the Mays' home was with Mr. Mays' consent, and therefore her entry with an undeclared felonious intent is not "unauthorized" as required by the definition of burglary, citing State v. Smith, 1998-2078 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. Wiley 880 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[8] State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. Roberts 864 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), , quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Wix 838 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 7 (La.10/29/99), , quoting 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 7.5, p. 212, and citing State v. Anderson, 97-1301, p. 3 (La.2/6/98), .
State v. B.J.D. 799 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. BJD 799 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. MM 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
[40] State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99); .
State v. M.M. 802 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99); .
State v. Miller 792 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
This issue was addressed in State v. Smith, 98-2078, p. 5 (La.10/29/99); , as follows: Because joint representation of co-defendants by the same counsel "is not per se violative of the constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel," Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 , 98 S.Ct.
State v. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), .
State v. Holder 771 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99); .
State v. McGee 758 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Smith, 98-2078 (La.10/29/99), , and cases cited therein.