State v. Brock

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Brock

730 So. 2d 870, 1999 La. LEXIS 522, 1999 WL 55757

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 5, 1999

DocketNo. 98-KK-2816

StatusPublished

This text of 730 So. 2d 870 (State v. Brock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brock, 730 So. 2d 870, 1999 La. LEXIS 522, 1999 WL 55757 (La. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

LEMMON, J.,

Concurring.

The court of appeal, in a comment in denying the writ application, was in error in saying that La.Rev.Stat. 14:40.2 is a general intent statute. The Legislature, in defining stalking, used the phrase “with the intent to place that person in fear of death or bodily injury.”

The words “with intent to defraud” or similar words have always been recognized as denoting the requirement of specific intent. See La.Rev.Stat. 14:11, which provides that the terms “intent” and “intentional,” in the absence of a qualifying provision, have reference to general criminal intent. However, the Reporter’s Comment to Section 11 notes that use of the term “with intent to defraud” indicates that the intent element is a “specific intent”, giving the example of forgery as a specific intent crime which is defined, in part, as a false making or altering of a signature with intent to defraud.

The present statute, which requires that the specified conduct be done with the intent to place the person in fear of death or bodily injury, clearly is a specific intent crime.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEMMON, J.,

Concurring.

The court of appeal, in a comment in denying the writ application, was in error in saying that La.Rev.Stat. 14:40.2 is a general intent statute. The Legislature, in defining stalking, used the phrase “with the intent to place that person in fear of death or bodily injury.”

The words “with intent to defraud” or similar words have always been recognized as denoting the requirement of specific intent. See La.Rev.Stat. 14:11, which provides that the terms “intent” and “intentional,” in the absence of a qualifying provision, have reference to general criminal intent. However, the Reporter’s Comment to Section 11 notes that use of the term “with intent to defraud” indicates that the intent element is a “specific intent”, giving the example of forgery as a specific intent crime which is defined, in part, as a false making or altering of a signature with intent to defraud.

The present statute, which requires that the specified conduct be done with the intent to place the person in fear of death or bodily injury, clearly is a specific intent crime.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 870, 1999 La. LEXIS 522, 1999 WL 55757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brock-la-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack