State v. Livings

2 Citing cases

  1. Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc.

    97 Or. App. 182 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 20 times
    In Lusk, the Oregon Court of Appeals recognized that when evaluating a summary judgment motion against a "deliberate intention to injure" claim, a court, like a jury, need not accept an employer's proferred interpretations of the evidence presented "in isolation," but may infer specific intent to injure "from the circumstances."

    A specific intent to produce injury is not the only permissible inference to be drawn from defendant's apparent obstinacy, but it is one that a jury should be permitted to consider.See State v. Livings, 487 So.2d 475 (La App 1986). It is for the finder of fact, not the court on summary judgment, to determine what inferences to draw.

  2. State v. Legendre

    522 So. 2d 1249 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 24 times
    In Legendre, the defendant was convicted of second degree battery and received the maximum sentence of five years at hard labor.

    Specific criminal intent is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act or failure to act. La.R.S. 14:10(1); State v. Livings, 487 So.2d 475 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1986). The defendant is a mental patient who has been diagnosed as chronic paranoid schizophrenic.