Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Carr, 761 So. 2d 1271.

51 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Reginald Ruffins La. 2025
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00)
State of Louisiana Versus Carlos Washington La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Laurie Elkins Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Qwandarious Rowe La. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Christine Jackson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
5/ 26/ 00), the rule is not to be applied with such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.
State of Louisiana v. Leo Dorsey La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
5/26/00), (observing that “[i]t is a well-established tenet of statutory construction that criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity”).
State in the Interest of G. J. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Henry Pierre Lyles La. 2019
5/26/00), (“It is a well-established tenet of statutory construction that criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity.
State of Louisiana v. Randy Lee Turner La. 2019
5/26/00), (citing State v. Becnel, 93-2536 (La.
State v. Vogel 261 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/26/00), , State v. Guidry , (La.
State v. Tucker 237 So. 3d 1176 La. 2018
5/26/00), , 1274 ( citing State v. Becnel , 93-2536, p. 2 (La.
State v. Grant 198 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
"The principle of lenity is premised on the idea that a person should not be criminally punished unless the law provides a fair warning of what conduct will be considered criminal.” State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4, (La.5/26/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Asa Bentley AKA - Asa N. Bentley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
5/26/00), (citations omitted).
State v. Bentley 185 So. 3d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Thus, criminal statutes are given a narrow interpretation and any ambiguity in the substantive provisions of a statute as written is resolved in favor of the accused and against the State.” State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Michael James Lacour La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02)
State v. Lacour 117 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Brous
State v. Oliphant 113 So. 3d 165 La. 2013
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .
Boudreaux v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections 101 So. 3d 22 La. 2012
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Rochon 75 So. 3d 876 La. 2011
State v. Williams, 00-1725, p. 12 (La.11/28/01); ; State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00); .
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
5/26/00), the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Brous
State ex rel. of I.P. 53 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/6/00), .
State v. Brooks 48 So. 3d 219 La. 2010
While the rule of lenity requires the courts to provide narrow interpretations of criminal statutes, State v. Carr, 1999-2209 (La.5/26/00), , it does not require courts to interpret a statute in such ways as to render words contained in the statute, such as the word “leaving,” without meaning.
State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Brous
State v. Brooks 24 So. 3d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Carr, 1999-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Landry 15 So. 3d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Carr, 99-2209, pp. 4-5 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, [1] State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with "such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute."
State v. Jones 983 So. 2d 95 La. 2008
State v. Interiano, 03-1760 (La.2/13/04), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Newton 973 So. 2d 916 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Carr, 1999-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
Further, although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with "such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute."
State of Louisiana v. Henrietta Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00)
State v. Williams 953 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Herbert Davenport, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Davenport 941 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Brown 904 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
In State v. Carr, 1999-2209 (La.5/26/00), , cited by defendant in his brief, the Supreme Court discussed the principle of lenity (citations omitted): It is a well-established tenet of statutory construction that criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity....
State v. Pugh 906 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), -1275 .
State v. Williams 893 So. 2d 7 La. 2004
Although criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with "such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute."
State v. Campbell 877 So. 2d 112 La. 2004
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Brown 879 So. 2d 1276 La. 2004
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Weaver 873 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Williams, supra , 815 So.2d at 382-383 , citing State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Interiano 868 So. 2d 9 La. 2004
State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), ; State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. JTS 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State of Louisiana v. J.T.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. J.T.S. 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Miller 857 So. 2d 423 La. 2003
Given this absence of an enabling clause or any express grant of authority and the well-established tenet of statutory construction that criminal statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), , we find that the *430 catchall provision of La.
State v. Odom 861 So. 2d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Williams 815 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), ; State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/29/01), .
State v. Williams 800 So. 2d 790 La. 2001
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), .
State v. Temple 789 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Carr, 99-2209 (La.5/26/00), ; State v. Burns, 29,632 (La.App.
State v. Frosch 787 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), .