State v. Young

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Young

703 So. 2d 1253, 1997 La. LEXIS 3740, 1997 WL 640619

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 21, 1997

DocketNo. 97-KK-0809

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 703 So. 2d 1253 (State v. Young) 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. Young, 703 So. 2d 1253, 1997 La. LEXIS 3740, 1997 WL 640619 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted. Our independent review of the trial record reveals that while the state introduced evidence of relator’s conduct after the effective date of 1995 La.Acts No. 416, and while the court in reaching its verdict considered the evidence particularly significant on the questions of malice and intent for purposes of R.S. 14:40.2, the state restricted its proof of the offense to acts which occurred before the effective date of the 1995 amendment, at a time when the crime was a six-month misdemeanor offense. The First Circuit Court of Appeal therefore properly considered relator’s filing as an application for supervisory review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C)(1). Our order of September 26, 1997, is therefore amended in this respect to provide for transfer of the application to the Court of Appeal for briefing, argument and an opinion.

Marcus, J., not on panel. See Part II, Section 3.

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

PER CURIAM.

*

Granted. Our independent review of the trial record reveals that while the state introduced evidence of relator’s conduct after the effective date of 1995 La.Acts No. 416, and while the court in reaching its verdict considered the evidence particularly significant on the questions of malice and intent for purposes of R.S. 14:40.2, the state restricted its proof of the offense to acts which occurred before the effective date of the 1995 amendment, at a time when the crime was a six-month misdemeanor offense. The First Circuit Court of Appeal therefore properly considered relator’s filing as an application for supervisory review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C)(1). Our order of September 26, 1997, is therefore amended in this respect to provide for transfer of the application to the Court of Appeal for briefing, argument and an opinion.

Marcus, J., not on panel. See Part II, Section 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 So. 2d 1253, 1997 La. LEXIS 3740, 1997 WL 640619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-young-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack