Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ward, 22 So. 2d 740.

27 citing documents.

State v. Russell 292 So. 2d 681 La. 1974
State v. Guillot 277 So. 2d 146 La. 1973
State v. Thomas 257 So. 2d 406 La. 1972
[2] , (1945), this court stated: "The test to determine the sufficiency of an indictment or information is three-fold: "1.
State v. Fitzgerald 179 So. 2d 906 La. 1965
State v. Moody 173 So. 2d 195 La. 1965
The eases cited are: , ; State v. Chanet, 209 La.
State v. Viator 167 So. 2d 374 La. 1964
State v. Scheler 144 So. 2d 389 La. 1962
State v. Barnes 134 So. 2d 890 La. 1961
1078 , ; , ; State v. Chanet, 209 La.
State v. McCrory 112 So. 2d 432 La. 1959
State v. Varnado, 208 La.
State v. Eyer 110 So. 2d 521 La. 1959
State v. Chanet, 209 La.
State v. Coleman 108 So. 2d 534 La. 1959
and State v. Heiman, 227 La.
State v. Almerico 95 So. 2d 334 La. 1957
While the defendant sets out the three tests to support a plea of former jeopardy, , ; State v. Pizzollotto, 209 La.
State v. Green 93 So. 2d 657 La. 1957
and the many authorities there cited.
State v. Straughan 87 So. 2d 523 La. 1956
and the recent case of State v. Scheuering, 226 La.
State v. Butler 86 So. 2d 906 La. 1956
360 , , , — deal with the sufficiency of an indictment or information.
State v. Heiman 79 So. 2d 78 La. 1955
Even though we should consider this contention to be one that it was not necessary to raise by demurrer or motion to quash, , .
State v. Scheuering 76 So. 2d 921 La. 1954
110 , ; , ; State v. Varnado, 208 La.
State v. Brown 76 So. 2d 396 La. 1954
The court found also that ‘the verdict of the jury was responsive to the charge laid in the indictment.’ ” , , which provides for the test of sufficiency of an indictment: “1.
State v. Scheuering 76 So. 2d 921 La. 1954
110 , ; , ; State v. Varnado, 208 La.
State v. Holmes 65 So. 2d 890 La. 1953
1078 , ; , ; State v. Chanet, 209 La.
State v. Gros 43 So. 2d 232 La. 1949
the Criminal Code but not covered by the short forms” specified in the Article “it shall be sufficient to charge the defendant by using the name and article number of the offense committed.” It is claimed by the State that the bill of information is valid under Article 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended, because it is in the short form, , and cited with approval in State v. Wright, 215 La.
State v. Wright 41 So. 2d 76 La. 1949
1078 , ; , ; State v. Frazier, 209 La.
State v. Murff 39 So. 2d 817 La. 1949
Is the indictment sufficient on its face to support a plea of former jeopardy in event there is an attempt to try the defendant more than once for the same offense?” , .
State v. Nix 31 So. 2d 1 La. 1947
See Article 235, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, , .
State v. Pullin 28 So. 2d 609 La. 1946
It is further argued by defense ■ , , namely: “1.
State v. Pizzolotto 25 So. 2d 292 La. 1946
this court *649 said that the test to determine the sufficiency of an indictment or information appears to be threefold, namely: ‘T. Is the indictment or information sufficient to inform the court what offense is being charged in order that the court might properly regulate the evidence sought to
State v. Chanet 24 So. 2d 670 La. 1946