Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Blanchard, 776 So. 2d 1165.

35 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keith Adams La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Ricardo D. McGowan La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Ladarrius Hodge La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Eddie J Richards La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
1/18/01), the Supreme Court held that “when a defendant is found to be in constructive possession of a firearm while simultaneously in possession of a controlled dangerous substance, the state must prove that there is a nexus between the firearm 9 and the controlled dangero
State of Louisiana v. Earnest Carr, III La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Freddrica Joseph La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Charlie Blow La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
1/18/01), State v. Lattin, 52,127, p. 6 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Terri Latrelle Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Reginald Bradley La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Julius Hankton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Noah Drake Primeaux A/K/A Noah Primeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
1/18/01), the trial court granted the defendant’s motion in limine and ordered the state to refrain from making or eliciting any reference to possession of cocaine, 9 a charge of which he had been acquitted.
State v. Lattin 256 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Hankton 251 So. 3d 1234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Christopher Obrien AKA Jermaine Christopher O'Brien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Obrien 242 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State ex rel. C.T. 195 So. 3d 70 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
C.T. argues that the State failed to prove a nexus between the marijuana and the pistol recovered in the instant case, citing State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), .
State v. Allen 177 So. 3d 771 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.01/18/01), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the State’s burden of proof regarding the elements of La.
State v. Dixon 146 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
Webb, 2013-1681, 144 So.3d at 979 (citing State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 3, (La.1/18/01), -1170 ; Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. 223, 240 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Webb 144 So. 3d 971 La. 2014
§ 14:95E was passed [by the legislature] in order to promote a compelling government interest, namely that of public safety.” The defendant noted that this court, in State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 3 (La.1/18/01), -70 , had already examined the statute’s legislative intent and found that the statute was enacted to promote public safety interests.
State v. Favorite 97 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 10 (La.1/18/01), .
State ex rel. S.L. 94 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), .
State ex rel. T.M. 88 So. 3d 1228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 6 (La.1/18/01), .
State ex rel. D.R. 51 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 6 (La.1/18/01), .
State of Louisiana v. John Thompson, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
1/18/01), (footnote omitted).
State v. Thompson 943 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 10 (La.1/18/01), (footnote omitted).
State v. Dodson 942 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
The supreme court upheld the statute against a constitutional attack on other grounds in State v. Blanchard, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/18/01), .
State v. Jordan 938 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
See, State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), , where the Louisiana Supreme Court held that under LSA-R.S.
State v. Ruffins 940 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In State v. Blanchard, *53 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), , the supreme court examined the issue of whether La.
State v. Shrader 881 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), .
State v. Hill 877 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Brisban, 00-3437 (La.02/26/02), ; State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.01/18/01), ; State v. Manning, supra .
State v. Manning 868 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Brisban, 00-3437 (La.02/26/02), ; State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.01/18/01), ; State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.09/05/96), .
State v. Boss 848 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
1/18/01), ., footnote 9, and the cases cited therein.
State v. Dabney 842 So. 2d 326 La. 2003
Cf. State v. Blanchard, 99-3439, p. 9 (La.1/18/01), (requiring a nexus between the firearm and the drug offense for purposes of La.R.S.
State v. Brisban 809 So. 2d 923 La. 2002
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), ; State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Jarvis 811 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Defendant concedes this point, stating counsel at trial simply failed to consider the applicability of the recently-decided State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), .