State v. Hamlet

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Orr

    253 La. 752 (La. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    Under this article, the District Attorney is vested with the discretion of proceeding under Article 67, the general article carrying a less severe penalty. See State v. Hamlet, 219 La. 278, 52 So.2d 852 and Bennett, Legislation Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure, 17 La. L. Rev. 52. To sustain their position that criminal conduct involving the theft of cattle can be prosecuted only under LSA-R.S. 14:67.1, the defendants rely upon State v. Ganey, 246 La. 986, 169 So.2d 73.

  2. Selman v. State

    411 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1966)   Cited 7 times

    As was said in People v. Adamson, 118 Cal.App.2d 714, 720, 258 P.2d 1020, 1024, referring to a letter offered to show motive or intent: `The authenticity of the letter would seem to have no bearing on its intended use. Whether it be genuine or a forgery, it was merely offered to show that Mr. Pugh was motivated by it in his actions.' See also Tanner v. State, 259 Ala. 306, 66 So.2d 836-837 (1953); State v. Hamlet, 219 La. 278, 52 So.2d 852, 855 (1951). Assuming that appellant was required to authenticate the power of attorney, we are of the opinion that the record demonstrates that appellant sufficiently authenticated the power of attorney.

  3. State v. Ganey

    246 La. 986 (La. 1964)   Cited 11 times

    In this connection, I seriously doubt that Act 173 of 1950, which was designated as Section 67.1 of Title 14 of the Revised Statutes of 1950 (a general code of laws) and was later amended by Act 154 of 1956, is a special law as the majority of the Court seems to believe. On the contrary, this Court, in State v. Hamlet, 219 La. 278, 52 So.2d 852, stated that the act "* * * as its very language plainly reveals, is merely an addition to Article 67 of the Criminal Code * * *" and further observed that it was manifestly the intent of the Legislature in passing that law to make the theft of cattle or livestock amenable to prosecution under the omnibus theft provision of Article 67 as well as the provision which exempted the State from proving the value of the cattle taken. See also comment by Professor Dale E. Bennett in 12 La.L.Rev. at page 127.

  4. Ortego v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc.

    423 So. 2d 780 (La. Ct. App. 1983)

    We believe the testimony was admissible, if not as res gestae, then under the rule which permits testimony to show the state of mind of Mr. Cooley when he stopped his truck. See George W. Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, p. 415 (1974) citing State v. Hamlet, 219 La. 278, 52 So.2d 852 (1951). Moreover, the Trial Judge was explicit in his instructions to the jury—the statement was not being admitted for the truth of its content.