Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Masino, 38 So. 2d 622.

43 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Merlin P. Dejean La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
at p. 5, 131 So.3d at 431 ( So.2d 622, 623 (1949); and then citing State v. Rivers, 2005-1121, pp. 5-6 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Jeffery Floyd Baham La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
2d 720, 722 ( 1971); 38 So.
State Of Louisiana v. Qwandarious Rowe La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
2d at 411, - 49, 38 K So.
State of Louisiana v. Dwayne Griffin La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
145, (1971); (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State of Louisiana v. Colleen Brown La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
This assertion constitutes a factual defense on the merits and was, thus, not a proper ground for a motion to quash.12 10 See also State v. Byrd, 96-2302 (La.3/13/98), (1949) (holding that “[t]he fact that the defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”); State v. Marcelin, 13-0893, p. 8 (La.
State v. Trepagnier 154 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Byrd, 96-2302 (La.3/13/98), ; , (1949) (holding that "[t]he fact that the defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment"); State v. Marcelin, 13-0893, p. 8 (La.App.
State v. Landry 144 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Major 140 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
145 , (1971); , (1949)(“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Godchaux 132 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Byrd, 96-2302, p. (La.3/13/98), ; , (1949) ("the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Childs 133 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
(1949); State v. Rivers, 05-1121, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
State v. Reyer 129 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Hall 127 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may | iahave a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
(1949); State v. Rivers, 05-1121, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
State v. Brooks 124 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Guillott 155 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Major 108 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Schmolke 108 So. 3d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
And it may well be that Mr. Schmolke has a good defense on the merits, but the fact that a defendant “may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment.”
State v. Brumfield 104 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Carter 88 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Fox 43 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
145 , (1971); , (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Brown 966 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
145 , (1971); , (1949) ("the fact that defendants *1148 may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment").
State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
145, (1971); (1949) (“the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).
State v. Rivers 942 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
145 , (1971); , (1949) ("the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment").
State v. Byrd 923 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1949), broadly interpreted the motion to quash to afford relief where insufficiency of the charge was brought out in the bill of particulars.
State v. Odom 861 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court, , (1949), broadly interpreted the motion to quash to afford relief where insufficiency of the charge was brought out in the bill of particulars.
State v. Gardner 844 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
299 , [(1948)], , [(1949)], State v. Holmes, 223 La.
State v. Byrd 708 So. 2d 401 La. 1998
145 , (1971); , (1949) ("the fact that defendants may have a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment").
State v. Larsen 489 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
299 , (1948); , (1949); State v. Leming, 217 La.
State v. Souby 332 So. 2d 253 La. 1976
299 , 34 So.2d *256 785 (1948); , (1949).
State v. Edwards 287 So. 2d 518 La. 1973
877 , (1969); , (1949); State v. Bessar, 213 La.
State v. Edgecombe 275 So. 2d 740 La. 1973
State v. Gerstenberger 255 So. 2d 720 La. 1971
State v. Conega, 121 La.
State v. Heymann 235 So. 2d 78 La. 1970
877 , ; , ; State v. Bessar, 213 La.
State v. Mann 202 So. 2d 259 La. 1967
299 , , , , State v. Holmes, 223 La.
State v. Hunter 195 So. 2d 273 La. 1967
State v. Atkins 181 So. 2d 779 La. 1966
299 , , , , State v. Peterson, 232 La.
State v. Perkins 178 So. 2d 255 La. 1965
299 , ; , ; State v. Kershaw, 234 La.
State v. Smart 170 So. 2d 365 La. 1964
State v. Garrison 154 So. 2d 400 La. 1963
Odgers on Libel and Slander, 2d Ed., § 183, p. 216; Newell on Slander and Libel, 4th Ed., § 345, p. 385.” , , we held that evidence may be taken on a Motion to Quash an indictment, but evidence is limited to procedural matters and may not include a defense on the merits.
State v. Holmes 65 So. 2d 890 La. 1953
State v. Towns 62 So. 2d 634 La. 1952
State v. Leming 46 So. 2d 262 La. 1950
410 ], 24 So.2d page 670; State v. Masino [ ], 38 So.2d page 622.