Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Schmolke, 108 So. 3d 296.

29 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keith Johnson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Merlin P. Dejean La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Rasheed McClebb La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), see also State v. Hamdan, [20]12–1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State of Louisiana v. Louis Barnes La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Michelle D. Harris La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
4 Cir. 1/16/13), see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Samson H. Quinton La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State v. Alexcee 262 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), , 299, observing that: Essentially, the inquiry is whether any conceivable set of the facts as alleged in the bill of information together with those specified in the bill of particulars (when particulars have been provided) if "found credible by the trier of fact" can support a conviction.
State v. Wells 262 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), , 299 ; see also State v. Hamdan , 12-1986, p. 6 (La.
State v. Kinard 214 So. 3d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4 Cir. 1/16/13), (“So long as the facts accepted as true can conceivably satisfy an essential element of the crime, the accused person can be compelled to stand trial for the charge.”).
State v. Broyard 183 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Brown 176 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 1/16/13), (citations omitted).
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 1/16/13), ; see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Smith 156 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Richardson 155 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Trepagnier 154 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/16/13), ; *674 see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), (noting that "[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).
State v. Rainey 150 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Cobb 161 So. 3d 28 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Olivia 137 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/16/13), , held: “A judge’s consideration of a motion to quash is confined to questions of law and, as a general rule, does not extend to defenses based upon factual findings ...
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Brady 131 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lawson 129 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hall 127 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Brooks 124 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 1/16/13) , , addressed the impropriety of granting a motion to quash a charge of violating La.
State v. Guillott 155 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 1/16/13), , 298 citing, State v. Lagarde, 95-1497 p. 2 (La.App.