Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Truby, 29 So. 2d 758.

62 citing documents.

State v. Anders 820 So. 2d 513 La. 2002
State v. Anders 778 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
95 , (1953); , (1947), (La.
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Carr 761 So. 2d 1271 La. 2000
State v. Antoine 721 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Schirmer 646 So. 2d 890 La. 1995
Const. Art. II, § 2; , (1947).
State v. All Pro Paint & Body Shop 618 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
(1947); State v. Williams, 173 La.
State Ex Rel. Mims v. Butler 601 So. 2d 649 La. 1992
State v. Massey 539 So. 2d 1211 La. 1989
State v. Lambert 514 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Cuevas 466 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
844 , (1966); , (1947); State v. Hunter, 164 La.
State v. Broom 439 So. 2d 357 La. 1983
(1947); State v. Williams, 173 La.
State v. Union Tank Car Co. 439 So. 2d 377 La. 1983
State v. Farris 412 So. 2d 1039 La. 1982
State v. Rodriguez 379 So. 2d 1084 La. 1980
179, (1955); , (1947); State v. Whitlock, 193 La.
State v. Dousay 378 So. 2d 414 La. 1979
In State v. Defrances, supra, we found that the phrase "any immoral sexual purpose" was unconstitutionally vague because it did not have a meaning which was generally accepted by the population as a whole; , (1947).
State v. Defrances 351 So. 2d 133 La. 1977
14:104 was amended to its current form in 1948 , (1947), declaring unconstitutional that part of R.S.
State v. Booth 347 So. 2d 241 La. 1977
See State v. Newton, La., (1976); , (1947).
State v. Cox 344 So. 2d 1024 La. 1977
95 , (1953); , *1026 (1947), in deciding whether the legislature intended for a defendant's act to constitute more than one violation of a criminal statute.
State v. McCarroll 337 So. 2d 475 La. 1976
95 , (1953), , (1947), we will adopt a similar approach in ascertaining what the legislature intended in enacting the aggravated assault statute.
Connick v. Lucky Pierre's 331 So. 2d 431 La. 1976
See State v. Heck, supra ; , (1947).
State v. Newton 328 So. 2d 110 La. 1976
14:3; State v. Heck, La., (1975); , (1947).
State v. Comeaux 319 So. 2d 897 La. 1975
State v. Pierre 320 So. 2d 185 La. 1975
(1947); State v. Williams, 189 La.
State v. Gyles 313 So. 2d 799 La. 1975
State v. Martin 310 So. 2d 544 La. 1975
State v. Heck 307 So. 2d 332 La. 1975
City of Baton Rouge v. Norman 290 So. 2d 865 La. 1974
844 , (1966); , (1947); State v. Hunter, 164 La.
State in Interest of Ogletree 244 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
179 , (1955); , (1947); State v. Daniels, 236 La.
State v. Dardar 241 So. 2d 905 La. 1970
21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Section 17, page 98; , ; State v. Vallery, 212 La.
State v. Heymann 235 So. 2d 78 La. 1970
Art. 7; , ; State v. Vaccaro, 200 La.
City of Natchitoches v. State 221 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
State v. Willis 221 So. 2d 39 La. 1969
In setting aside the conviction and sentences, we stated, “The drafters of the code could very easily have avoided the result reached in this case and in the Truby case [ , ] had they given the word ‘immoral’ a fixed and designated meaning as they did other words and terms used generally throughout the code in Article 2, or had they defined ‘immoral act’ and ‘immoral purpose’ as they did ‘criminal intent’ in Article 10 and ‘criminal negligence’ in Article 12.” As stated su
State v. Fulmer 193 So. 2d 774 La. 1967
14:106(2), denouncing the offense of obscenity as the “‘[p] reduction, sale, exhibition, possession with the intent to display, or advertisement of any indecent print, written composition, model or instrument’ ” , , and State v. Vallery, supra, the legislature, as in the case at bar, amended R.S.
State v. Cloud 176 So. 2d 620 La. 1965
State v. Bertrand 170 So. 2d 386 La. 1964
319, 368 , ; , and State v. Blanchard, 226 La.
State v. Brunt 163 So. 2d 551 La. 1964
State v. Vaccaro, 200 La.
State v. Bonanno 163 So. 2d 72 La. 1964
620 , , ; State v. Christine, 239 La.
State v. Wiener 161 So. 2d 755 La. 1964
State v. Deutch 161 So. 2d 730 La. 1964
563 ], it would ‘certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.’ ” , .
State v. Hertzog 131 So. 2d 788 La. 1961
* * * ” , in connection with a review of a number of cases involving the construction of criminal statutes alleged to be too broad and indefinite.
State v. Daniels 109 So. 2d 896 La. 1959
State v. Marsh 96 So. 2d 643 La. 1957
State v. Murtes 94 So. 2d 446 La. 1957
643 ; , ; State v. Kraft, 214 La.
State v. Viator 87 So. 2d 115 La. 1956
with Justice Hawthorne as the organ of the court, we said: "`Unless an act can be brought within the meaning of the words of a criminal statute, it is not a crime, though it comes within the mischief sought to be remedied, and is of equal atrocity with the acts enumerated and denounced by the sta
State v. Viator 87 So. 2d 115 La. 1956
with Justice Hawthorne as the organ of the court, we said: *887 is of equal atrocity with the acts enumerated and denounced by the statute.
State v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company 78 So. 2d 825 La. 1955
* * *” And in the case of State v. Truby, supra, [ , ] we said: “It is true, as stated hereinabove, that in the construction of a provision of the Criminal Code the words used therein are to be taken according to their fair import, in their usual sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purposes of the provision.
State v. Tanner 76 So. 2d 5 La. 1954
697 , and cases therein cited; , ; State v. Duncan, 219 La.
State v. Roth 74 So. 2d 392 La. 1954

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by