Statute Annotations › Louisiana › La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27

La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27

Attempt: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Louisiana
Case notes
780
Cited in passing
992
Citing cases indexed
2,264
Case dates
1971–2026
Screened through
2026-05-06
Checked for later law changes
2026-10-02
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

1,772 citing cases reviewed of 2,264 in the citation index: 780 interpreted the section (annotated below), 992 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-05-06 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Later changes in law

Changes after the earliest notes below. A note stating a rule one of these changed is marked "Law changed since".

  • 1975 Act 132 raised the § 14:27(D)(1) ceiling for attempts of death- or life-punishable offenses from 20 to 50 years at hard labor. Source
  • 1983 Act 70 raised armed robbery’s maximum to 99 years; the § 14:27(D)(3) attempted maximum became 49½ years rather than 44½. Source
  • 1989 Act 609 amended § 14:27; its official codified credit does not identify the altered text. Source
  • 1992 Act 306 raised the manslaughter maximum from 21 to 40 years, raising the attempted-manslaughter maximum under § 14:27(D)(3) from 10½ to 20 years. Source
  • 1995 Act 988 amended § 14:27(D)(1) to require 10 to 50 years without parole, probation, or suspension for attempts of offenses punishable by death or life; the earlier rule continues to govern pre-amendment offenses. Source
  • 2003 Acts 166 and 745 amended § 14:27; the current text includes a 20-to-50-year no-benefits range for attempts of death- or life-punishable offenses against a peace officer, but the codified credits do not distinguish the two acts’ revisions. Source
  • 2010 Act 531 replaced the single attempted-felony-theft penalty with value-based § 14:27(D)(2)(c) tiers, including up to five years and a $2,000 fine for the highest tier. Source
  • 2013 Act 240 raised the lower value threshold in § 14:27(D)(2)(c)(i) from $300 to $500. Source
  • 2014 Act 255 raised the attempted-theft thresholds in § 14:27(D)(2)(c) from $500 to $750 and from $5,000 to $25,000. Source
  • 2017 Act 281 raised the underlying theft § 14:67 felony threshold from $750 to $1,000; value remains material to the attempted-theft penalty. Source
  • 2017 Act 281 removed § 14:62.2(B)’s no-benefits restriction for simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, changing the restriction carried into attempted-burglary sentences. Source
  • 2017 Act 281 revised Schedule I § 40:966 distribution and cultivation penalties into substance- and weight-based tiers, displacing former blanket 30-year completed-offense and 15-year attempt maxima for ordinary MDMA and marijuana offenses. Source
  • 2017 Act 281 revised Schedule II § 40:967 distribution and possession penalties into weight-based tiers, displacing former blanket attempted-cocaine and attempted-methamphetamine-distribution ranges and the 2½-year attempted-possession maximum; methamphetamine manufacturing remains separately punished. Source
  • 2024 Act 56 set a one-to-seven-and-one-half-year term and a $1,000-to-$5,000 fine for attempted felon firearm possession under § 14:95.1(B). Source

Attempted theft—Value determination required for sentencing

For attempted theft punishable as a felony, Subsection (D)(2) supplies the penalty; Subsection (D)(3)'s one-half limitation applies only to offenses not covered by (D)(1) or (D)(2), and neither subsection limits restitution.

State v. PORTIE · filed 2009-09-16(D)(2) and (D)(3)

La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3), cited by defendant, does not apply to attempted thefts because La. R.S. 14:27(D)(2) expressly does. La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) applies to “all other cases,” meaning all those cases not covered by La. R.S. 14:27(D)(1) and (2). Further, La. La. R.S. 14:27(D)(2) and La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) refer only to terms of imprisonment and fines, and make no mention of restitution.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(2) requires the jury to determine and state whether the value of property involved in attempted theft makes the underlying theft a felony or misdemeanor before a sentence may be imposed.

State v. White · filed 1975-07-10(D)(2)

In a theft case defendant may not properly be sentenced upon a jury finding of guilt of attempted theft under R.S. 14:27(D)(2) absent a determination of value by the jury. Therefore in a theft case a verdict of attempted theft must describe either the value of the property which is the object of the attempted theft or whether such property in value is $100 or more, or less than $100.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Attempted murder—Penalty

An attempt to commit a crime punishable by life imprisonment carries at least ten years at hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State of Louisiana v. Portalis · filed 2023-12-06(D)(1)(a)

Defendant was thus subject to at least ten years in prison, without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines attempt as specific intent plus an overt act, treats lying in wait with a dangerous weapon as an attempt, and provides a ten-to-fifty-year imprisonment range for attempted second degree murder.

State of Louisiana v. James · filed 2024-01-10(A), (B)(1), (D)(1)(a)

An attempted second degree murder occurs when an offender has the specific intent to kill and commits an overt act to accomplish his objective. La.R.S. 14:27(A); 14:30.1(A)(1). Lying in wait with a dangerous weapon constitutes an attempt. La.R.S. 14:27(B)(1). Attempted second degree murder requires at least ten years but at most fifty years of imprisonment. La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 132 of 1975 raised the § 14:27(D)(1) ceiling for death- or life-punishable attempts from 20 to 50 years; the former ceiling still governs earlier offenses.

Section 14:27(D)(1) provides that the penalty for attempted murder may not exceed twenty years' imprisonment at hard labor.

State v. Dillard · filed 1975-10-01(D)(1)

The penalty for attempted murder may not exceed twenty years' imprisonment at hard labor. La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1), as amended, La.Acts 1970, No. 471, § 1.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires an attempt to include an act tending directly toward the crime's accomplishment undertaken with a specific intent to commit that crime; for attempted murder, that means specific intent to kill.

State v. Butler · filed 1975-11-24

La.R.S. 14:27 provides that to attempt a crime an accused must do an act tending directly towards accomplishing his object, "having a specific intent" to commit the crime. The crime of murder is "the killing of a human being," under certain circumstances. Thus, as this court held in State v. Roberts, 213 La. 559, 35 So.2d 216, 217 (1948), "the elements of the crime of attempted murder are specific intent to kill a human being (Article 30, Criminal Code) and an overt act in furtherance of the object."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 sets the maximum penalty for attempted forcible rape at twenty years at hard labor, with at least one year imposed without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. James · filed 1991-01-17

Defendant was convicted of attempted forcible rape which meant the maximum sentence would be twenty years at hard labor with the condition that at least one year of the sentence had to be imposed without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. ... Defendant's sentence does not include this condition, and thus it is illegally lenient.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

For attempted murder, § 14:27 requires specific intent to kill plus an overt act tending toward accomplishment of the killing.

State v. Meads · filed 1999-04-01

"[t]he gravamen of the crime of attempted murder, whether first or second degree, is the specific intent to kill and the commission of an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of that goal."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits the penalty for an attempted offense to no more than one-half of the maximum fine and does not impose a minimum fine.

State v. Patterson · filed 2010-05-12

Although La. R.S. 14:95.1 also calls for a mandatory fine, La. R.S. 14:27 only prescribes a penalty of not over one-half of the maximum fine. No minimum fine is mandated.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit the target offense and an overt act tending toward its accomplishment.

State of Louisiana v. Bethley · filed 2013-02-06

To prove attempted murder, the State had to show proof of the “specific intent to kill the victim and the commission of an overt act that tends toward the accomplishment of the victim’s death.” George, 19 So.3d at 618; La.R.S. 14:27. Specific intent “is that state of mind which exists when the circumstances indicate that the offender actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow his act.” La.R.S. 14:10(1); State v. Daniels, 109 So.2d 896, 899 (La.1959).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(1)(a) sets the penalty for attempted murder at 10 to 50 years of hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State of Louisiana v. Lukens · filed 2019-10-02(D)(1)(a)

Under La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a), the penalty range for attempted murder is imprisonment “at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifty years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” Accordingly, Defendant’s sentence represents forty percent of the maximum period of incarceration he could have received.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

For attempted second degree murder, § 14:27(D)(1)(a) provides a sentence of 10 to 50 years without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State of Louisiana v. Kelby Meaux A/K/A Kelby D. Meaux · filed 2022-02-23(D)(1)(a)

Attempted second degree murder carries a sentencing range of “not less than ten nor more than fifty years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.” La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

For attempted murder, § 14:27(A) requires specific intent to kill and an act in furtherance of that intent.

State v. Byrd · filed 1986-06-25(A)

Clearly, if the jury believed Deputy Calais’ testimony, there was more than enough evidence presented from which the jury could infer that the defendant fully intended to kill the deputy and that he did an act or acts in furtherance of that intent.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(1), together with the second degree murder provision, sets a ten-to-fifty-year hard-labor sentencing range for attempted second degree murder, without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Peters · filed 2000-12-22(D)(1)

The penalty for attempted second degree murder is imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten and not more than fifty years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(1)(a), applied with the second-degree-murder statute, sets attempted second-degree murder at ten to fifty years of hard labor without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State of Louisiana Versus Jonathon Brown · filed 2023-06-21(D)(1)(a)

Pursuant to La. R.S. 14:30.1(B) and La. R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a), the sentencing range for attempted second degree murder was imprisonment at hard labor for not less than ten nor more than fifty years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Attempted murder requires specific intent to kill and an overt act tending toward that result.

State of Louisiana v. Gary P. Sims, Jr. · filed 2021-06-30(A)

The crime of attempted murder, whether first or second degree, requires proof of the specific intent to kill and the commission of an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of that goal. ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Sims had the specific intent to kill Dep. McCrell.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Attempt as a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime

Section 14:27(C) treats an attempt as a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for an attempt even when the intended crime was actually completed.

State of Louisiana v. Dillion · filed 2026-03-19(C)

Furthermore, La. R.S. 14:27(C) provides that “[a]n attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears . . . that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.” Accordingly, the offense of attempted unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is a lesser grade of the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and, therefore, it is a valid responsive verdict.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) permits conviction for an attempt even when the attempted crime was completed, while § 14:27(D)(3) limits punishment for the attempt to no more than one-half of the maximum punishment for the offense attempted.

State of Louisiana Versus Cire Johnson · filed 2023-12-27(C), (D)(3)

Even though the evidence at trial may show that the crime attempted was actually completed by the defendant, he may nevertheless be convicted of an attempt to commit the crime. La. R.S. 14:27(C); ... Therefore, under La. R.S. 14:108.2 and La. R.S. 14:27, the required penalty for each count was a fine not to exceed of one thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment with or without hard labor not to exceed one and one-half years, or both.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) treats an attempt as a separate, lesser grade of the intended crime, while § 14:27(D)(3) limits imprisonment for an attempt to no more than one-half of the longest term prescribed for the offense attempted.

State of Louisiana v. Manuel · filed 2022-04-06(C), (D)(3)

“An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.” La. R.S. 14:27(C). ... La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that a person convicted of attempting to commit a crime shall be imprisoned in the same manner as for the offense attempted; however, such imprisonment shall not exceed “one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted ….”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) makes attempt a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for attempt even when the intended crime was actually perpetrated in pursuance of the attempt.

State v. Credeur · filed 1976-02-23(C)

The definition of an "attempt" as set forth in La.R.S. 14:27 is: . . . [A] separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt. The responsive verdicts to specific offenses are set forth in article 814 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though all offenses are not enumerated in this article, the Official Revision Comment (b) following the article states: . . . For all other offenses not enumerated and listed in the above article attempt would be responsive. The crime for which the defendant is charged, namely aggravated crime against nature, does not appear in article 814; therefore, it follows that "attempt" is a responsive verdict. See State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La.1974). Since "attempt" is a responsive verdict to the crime charged, defendant's argument is of no moment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 supplies the attempt offense used to treat attempted aggravated rape as a responsive offense to aggravated rape.

State v. D.T. · filed 2008-12-11

Attempted aggravated rape is a responsive offense to aggravated rape. La.R.S. 14:27, La.R.S. 14:42. However, based on the same reasoning stated above, the victim’s testimony is insufficient to prove the elements of this offense.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits the sentence for an attempt to one-half of the longest imprisonment term for the offense attempted.

State v. Jones · filed 1976-02-23

Conviction of an attempt to commit simple burglary must not exceed one-half of the longest term of imprisonment for the offense so attempted. La.R.S. 14:27. Therefore, the trial judge was authorized to sentence defendant to serve three years at hard labor, a sentence not exceeding one-half of nine years, and a sentence falling within the limits prescribed by Sections 27 and 62 of Title 14 of the Revised Statutes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits the penalty for attempted armed robbery to no more than one-half of the longest imprisonment term prescribed for armed robbery.

State v. McClinton · filed 1976-03-29

As set forth in La.R.S. 14:27, the penalty for an attempt to commit armed robbery must not exceed one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for armed robbery.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) authorizes a sentence of one-half the maximum penalty for the completed felony when the defendant is convicted of attempting it.

State Ex Rel. Miller v. Henderson · filed 1976-03-29(D)(3)

Accordingly, as authorized by the attempt statute, La.R.S. 14:27, subd. D(3), the district court sentenced the defendant to five years at hard labor, that being one-half of the maximum penalty provided for violation of the intended crime (i. e., the ten years provided for escape from the penitentiary, La.R.S. 14:110.2 (1969).) ... The verdict was thus responsive to the charge, and the sentence imposed was thus within the statutory limits allowable for the violation held proved by the verdict.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 14:27(D)(1) made attempted aggravated rape punishable by up to twenty years’ imprisonment at the time of the offense.

State v. Sledge · filed 1976-10-14(D)(1)

At that time attempted aggravated rape was punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty years. La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 14:27(D)(1) made attempted aggravated rape punishable by up to twenty years’ imprisonment at hard labor.

State v. Brown · filed 1976-12-22(D)(1)

At that time, attempted aggravated rape was punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than twenty years, La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1), and simple rape was punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one nor more than twenty years, La.R.S. 14:43. The legislature obviously intended to impose the most serious penalty available under the law. In this case, although there is a range of from one to twenty years, the most serious penalty is twenty years at hard labor. Thus, we direct the trial court on remand to sentence defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for a period of twenty years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 988 of 1995 added a ten-year minimum and barred parole, probation, and suspension under § 14:27(D)(1) for later offenses punishable by death or life; the former benefits rule still applies to pre-amendment offenses.

Section 14:27(D)(1) sets a maximum of fifty years at hard labor for an attempt to commit an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment and does not authorize parole, probation, or suspension-of-sentence restrictions.

State v. Green · filed 1980-11-19(D)(1)

However, the penalty for attempt was prescribed by La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1), as follows: "If the offense so attempted is punishable by death or life imprisonment, [one convicted of attempt] shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than fifty years." Because the statute does not prescribe ineligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence, the trial court could not lawfully so qualify defendant's sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 70 of 1983 raised armed robbery’s maximum to 99 years, making the § 14:27(D)(3) attempted maximum 49½ years for offenses governed by the later statute.

Section 14:27 sets the maximum sentence for attempted armed robbery at the reduced amount applicable to an attempt, which the court stated here was forty-four and one-half years.

State v. Age · filed 1982-05-17

Because of our holding on the Boykin issue, that the prior guilty plea conviction cannot be used to convict defendant as a second offender, the case must be remanded for resentencing with a maximum allowable sentence of forty-four and one-half years under La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:64.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits punishment for an attempt to one-half the largest fine and one-half the longest imprisonment term prescribed for the completed offense, or both.

State v. Young · filed 1983-05-17(D)(3)

An attempted forgery is punishable by a fine of up to one-half the largest fine for forgery, imprisonment of up to one-half the longest term of imprisonment for forgery, or both. La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) and 14:72.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (C) treats an attempt as a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for attempt even when the intended crime was actually completed.

State v. Wallace · filed 1985-03-12(C)

An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; a defendant may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by the defendant. La. R.S. 14:27(C).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) makes an attempt a lesser included offense of the charged crime, so a defendant may be convicted of attempting the offense when the evidence supports only partial completion.

State v. Crayton · filed 1985-05-13(C)

R.S. 14:27(C) makes an attempt a lesser included offense of the charged crime. ... We find that under these facts the trial judge properly convicted the defendant of attempted illegal possession of a concealed weapon by a convicted felon.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) makes an attempt a lesser included offense of the charged crime, so a jury may convict of attempt when it could convict of the completed crime.

State v. Ebey · filed 1986-07-21(C)

[2] The question of whether attempt is a valid responsive verdict to this crime has been previously passed upon by the Louisiana Supreme Court. In State v. Ford, 407 So.2d 688 (La.1981), the court stated: "Finally, defendant assigns error in the jury's returning a verdict of attempted unlawful possession of a firearm, argues that attempt cannot be a responsive verdict under the facts of the case. R.S. 14:27(C) makes an attempt a lesser included offense of the charged crime. Defendant's argument appears to be with the legislature's definition of an attempt, but we are not persuaded that his rights were somehow violated when the jury convicted him only on attempt when they could have convicted him of the crime itself. Perhaps they reasoned that his offense was committed when he was outside the car and not in physical possession of the firearm at the time. Regardless, we find no merit to this assignment." State v. Ford, supra, at 691. Thus, it appears clear that the jury may properly convict the defendant of attempt when it could have convicted him of the crime itself. La.R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) treats attempt as a lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for attempt even when the intended crime was actually completed in pursuit of the attempt.

State v. Victorian · filed 1986-10-08(C)

La.R.S. 14:27(C) provides that attempt is a lesser grade of the intended crime; any person may be convicted of attempt to commit a crime although it appears on trial that the crime was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuit of such attempt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (C) treats an attempt as a separate but lesser grade of the completed crime, so an indictment for the completed offense gives notice of the attempted offense.

State v. Kalathakis · filed 1989-04-19(C)

The purpose of the indictment was to inform the defendant of the crime she was accused of violating. An indictment charging a defendant with a completed offense informs the defendant that she must prepare a defense for that charge and every lesser included offense. “An attempt is a separate but lesser grade” of a completed crime. La.R.S. 14:27(C). The defendant was, therefore, adequately notified that attempted manufacturing was among the crimes with which she was charged.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (C) makes attempt a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for attempt even when the intended crime was actually completed.

State v. Ponsell · filed 2000-08-23(C)

La. R.S. 14:27(C) defines an attempt, in pertinent part: C. An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt. (Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, attempted sexual battery is a lesser included grade of the crime of sexual battery. All of the elements of Attempted Sexual Battery are elements in Sexual Battery. ... Therefore, we conclude that attempted sexual battery is a lesser and included grade of the offense of sexual battery. La. R.S. 14:27. Therefore, the prior 1991 conviction of the defendant for attempted sexual battery is a valid felony conviction for purposes of the habitual offender proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) makes an attempt a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime, permitting a court to return an attempted-crime verdict even when the evidence shows the completed crime was solicited or committed.

State v. Little · filed 2002-03-28(C)

Accordingly, though the defendant actually solicited (and did not merely "attempt" to solicit) the officer to commit crime against nature, under R.S. 14:27(C) the district judge could return a verdict of the lesser offense of attempted crime against nature.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (C)'s description of attempt as a separate but lesser grade does not make attempted battery a separate Louisiana offense or a proper responsive verdict to a battery charge.

State v. Johnson · filed 2002-05-31(C)

In addition, despite the broad language of La. R.S. 14:27(C) that attempt "is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime," attempted battery is not a proper responsive verdict to a charged offense of battery because it is not a separate offense in Louisiana.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (C) treats an attempt as a separate, lesser grade of the intended crime, so it can serve as a responsive verdict for the completed offense.

State v. Brown · filed 2013-07-24(C)

Second, regardless of the definition of a lesser included offense on which she relies, attempted cruelty to a juvenile is a legislatively authorized lesser included offense by virtue of La. 14:27(C); therefore, it is a responsive verdict by virtue of La.C.Cr.P. art. 815.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) makes an attempt a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and permits conviction for an attempt to commit a crime.

State v. Joseph · filed 2016-12-07(C)

La. R.S. 14:27(C) provides in pertinent part that “an attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Definition of attempt

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward the intended crime, while subsection (C) makes attempt a separate lesser grade even when the intended crime was actually perpetrated.

State of Louisiana v. White · filed 2025-12-11(A) (C)

“Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.” La. R.S. 14:27(A). “An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.” La. R.S. 14:27(C).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as requiring specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward commission; mere preparation alone is insufficient.

State of Louisiana Versus Marvin K Chest · filed 2025-02-26A, B(1), and C

La. R.S. 14:27 defines an “attempt,” for purposes of Title 14 crimes, as: ... A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... B. (1) Mere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to constitute an attempt; … ... C. An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime; and any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as a specific-intent act or omission that tends directly toward committing the intended crime and treats attempt as a separate, lesser grade of that crime.

State v. Kenner · filed 1976-06-21

Attempt (R.S. 14:27) covers any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of tending directly toward the accomplishment of his object. An attempt is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent to commit the underlying crime and an act or omission done for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing that crime.

State v. Hall · filed 1983-11-29(A)

Thus, by the very definition of an attempt, specific intent is required to convict of an attempt to commit a crime. In order to attempt to commit a crime an offender must actively desire to cause the specific result required by a particular criminal statute [here influence the conduct of a potential witness] and do or omit an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object. See State v. Parish, 405 So.2d 1080 (La.1981).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent to commit a crime plus an act or omission for the purpose of or tending directly toward accomplishing the intended offense.

State v. Britton · filed 1984-05-10

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits any act for the purpose of or tending directly towards the accomplishment of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended. La.R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

For an attempted crime, it does not matter whether the accused could actually have completed the intended offense under the circumstances.

State v. Ballard · filed 1976-09-13

For an attempted crime, "it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he [the accused] would have actually accomplished his purpose." La.R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 132 of 1975 raised the § 14:27(D)(1) ceiling for death- or life-punishable attempts from 20 to 50 years; the former ceiling still governs earlier offenses.

Section 14:27(D)(1) made attempted aggravated rape punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

State v. Watkins · filed 1976-10-14(D)(1)

At that time, attempted aggravated rape was punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty years. La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 988 of 1995 added a ten-year minimum and barred parole, probation, and suspension under § 14:27(D)(1) for later offenses punishable by death or life; the former benefits rule still applies to pre-amendment offenses.

Section 14:27(D)(1) makes attempted aggravated rape punishable by hard labor for not more than fifty years and does not make the offender ineligible for parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Diggs · filed 1982-10-20(D)(1)

As prescribed by La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1), the penalty for attempted aggravated rape is punishment at hard labor for not more than fifty years. See, La.R.S. 14:42. Because the statute does not prescribe ineligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence, the trial court could not lawfully so qualify defendant's sentence. See, State v. Welch, 368 So.2d 965 (La.1979).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) permits conviction for an attempt even when the defendant actually completes the intended crime in pursuing the attempt.

State v. Clark · filed 1976-12-13C

As provided by La.R.S. 14:27 C (“Attempt”), “ * * * any person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt.” Some evidence thus proves the offense of which the defendant is convicted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 permits an attempt conviction even when the defendant completed the more serious underlying offense, because failure is not an essential element of attempt.

State v. Williams · filed 1983-10-12

Furthermore, the fact that the defendant actually completed the crime does not preclude a conviction for attempt thereof. See: La.R.S. 14:27. The defendant cannot escape conviction by showing he committed a more serious offense inasmuch as failure is not an essential element of attempt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(C) permits a defendant to be convicted of an attempt even when the evidence shows that the intended offense was actually completed.

State v. Jenkins · filed 1984-08-22(C)

Attempted aggravated rape is a responsive verdict to the crime charged. An accused may be found guilty of an attempt to commit a crime although it appears on the trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated. La.R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires a specific intent to commit the target crime for an attempt conviction.

State v. Progue · filed 1977-10-10

As written, the special charge requires explanation that a specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted murder.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes an attempt when a person specifically intends to commit a crime and takes an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Peebles · filed 1979-10-08

A person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended. ... Applying these rules to the evidence in this case, we conclude that the officers had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had attempted to distribute methaqualone. Under the circumstances, the defendant's acts in approaching a person and offering to sell him drugs indicated a probability that the defendant specifically intended to commit the crime and had taken a step for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishment of his objective.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes specific intent an essential element of an attempted crime.

State v. Williams · filed 1980-10-06

Specific intent, an essential element of an attempted crime, La.R.S. 14:27, was also required by the charged offense in this case, and necessarily found by the jury when it found defendant guilty as charged.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires a defendant to have specific intent to commit the target crime in order to be guilty of an attempt.

State Ex Rel. Womack v. Blackburn · filed 1981-01-26

Furthermore, R.S. 14:27, the attempt statute, requires that defendant have a specific intent to commit the crime in order to be guilty of attempt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit the intended crime and an act tending directly toward accomplishing it; mere preparation is generally insufficient.

State v. Knighton · filed 1984-04-30

Thus, it was necessary that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a specific intent to kill the victim or to inflict great bodily harm upon him and engaged in some act in an attempt to accomplish this purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Honore · filed 1984-05-14

La.R.S. 14:27 states in pertinent part that "[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended...." ... We find both the direct and circumstantial evidence presented by the state in this matter is such that when reviewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could, indeed, find the essential elements of the crime of attempted simple robbery were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as requiring specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward completion, and attempted manslaughter therefore requires specific intent.

State v. Bosley · filed 1984-08-22

La.R.S. 14:27 provides: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... Thus, the crime of attempted manslaughter is a crime which requires the presence of specific intent.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Hicks · filed 1989-12-19A

An "attempt" is defined in La.R.S. 14:27, in pertinent part, as follows: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. Thus, to be guilty of attempted armed robbery, a defendant must have a specific intent to commit armed robbery, and he must do or omit an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishment of his object.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 14:27 defines attempt, including conduct such as lying in wait, and does not authorize a sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Yarbrough · filed 1992-03-11

After reviewing the charge given, we find the trial judge properly instructed the jury as to the definition of attempt, as it is defined in La.R.S. 14:27. The jury instruction closely tracks the language of the statute and includes the phrase "lying in wait" as an example of what constitutes an attempt. The phrase was not singled out or unduly emphasized. The charge as a whole was a complete and correct statement of the law. ... The attempt statute, La.R.S. 14:27, does not provide for the imposition of a sentence without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. State v. See, 467 So.2d 525 (La. 1985).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as a specific-intent crime in which the defendant performs or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing the criminal objective, even if the crime could not have been completed under the circumstances.

State v. Green · filed 1992-12-29(A)

Attempt is defined as: "Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose." La.R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as an act done with specific intent to commit a crime that tends directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Crawford · filed 1993-05-28A

La.R.S. 14:27 provides, in pertinent part: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... We find that, based on defendant's actions, rational fact finders could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did have the specific intent to rape the victim, despite his intoxication.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent to commit the intended crime and an act or omission tending directly toward its accomplishment; the court held that the defendant’s retaliatory threats supported attempted obstruction of justice.

State v. Duplessis · filed 1995-06-07(A)

La.R.S. 14:27(A) provides: ... A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... However, the evidence does support a conviction under Subparagraph (3). Defendant’s words conveyed his intent to retaliate against Klein for his giving evidence against defendant’s son at the probation revocation hearing. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed attempted obstruction of justice.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

An attempt requires specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it; actual completion of the crime is immaterial.

State v. Lewis · filed 1995-09-28

La.R.S. 14:27 defines an attempt: "Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent to commit the intended crime and an act tending directly toward accomplishing it for an attempt conviction.

State v. Holmes · filed 1997-10-29(A)

An "attempt," as defined in La. R.S. 14:27, requires specific intent to commit a crime and commission of an act tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as an act or omission, done with specific intent to commit a crime, that tends directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime is not completed.

State v. Allen · filed 1998-01-14

La.R.S. 14:27 provides in pertinent part: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 treats an act or omission tending directly toward commission of a crime as an attempt and permits conviction for the attempt even when the intended crime was completed.

State v. Montgomery · filed 1999-01-27

An individual who does or omits an act tending directly toward possessing cocaine can be found guilty of attempted possession. However, an attempt is a separate but a lesser grade of the intended crime. A person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, even though it appears at trial that the crime intended or attempted was actually perpetrated by such person in pursuance of such attempt. La.R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 treats an attempt as requiring specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward committing the intended crime, even if the crime could not actually have been completed.

State v. Milton · filed 2000-02-01

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the_Lyaccomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as an act or omission, undertaken with specific intent to commit a crime, that directly tends toward accomplishing the crime, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Texada · filed 2000-02-02(A)

An attempt is defined in La.R.S. 14:27(A): Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. First degree murder is the killing of a human being when the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person. In order to find a defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, the defendant is required to have had specific intent to kill. [5] ... At trial, the evidence presented sufficiently supported his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes an attempt punishable when a person specifically intends to commit an offense and takes or omits an act directly tending toward its accomplishment, regardless of whether the offense could actually have been completed.

State v. Ballett · filed 2000-03-15A

La. R.S. 14:27 A defines attempt as: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes an attempt a specific-intent crime when a person commits or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing the intended offense, even if the offense is not completed.

State v. Young · filed 2000-04-17(A)

Attempt is defined in La. R.S. 14:27(A) as follows: ... LA. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as having specific intent to commit a crime and doing or omitting an act directed toward accomplishing that crime.

State v. Holley · filed 2001-10-03(A)

An attempt occurs when a person having a specific intent to commit a crime, "does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object[.]" La.R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines attempt as requiring specific intent and an act or omission tending directly toward committing the crime, regardless of whether the crime could actually be completed.

State v. Barthe · filed 2001-12-27

La. R.S. 14:27 defines the crime of attempt as occurring when an individual, "having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object ...; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Davies · filed 2002-04-05

Attempt is defined in La. R.S. 14:27, which provides in pertinent part: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines attempt by requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward its accomplishment; success need not be possible.

State v. Harris · filed 2003-05-20(A)

The overt act need not be the ultimate step toward or the last possible act in the consummation of the crime attempted. Id. It is the intent to commit the crime, not the possibility of success, that determines whether the act or omission constitutes the crime of attempt. Id. ... In the instant case, as in J.W. and Hollis, the state failed to introduce scientific evidence that the substance was cocaine. However, we find that there was sufficient evidence presented, when considered in its entirety, to support a guilty verdict of the charged offense.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it; the crime need not actually have been accomplished.

State of Louisiana v. Robert Glenn Jones A/K/A Ernest Hancock · filed 2003-09-10(A)

Attempt is defined in La.R.S. 14:27(A), which provides: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... Thus, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant specifically intended to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a human being and that he “committed an ‘act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of’ that intent.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent to commit a crime combined with an act tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Ford · filed 2004-02-18

An attempt occurs when a person has the specific intent to commit a crime and does an act tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as a specific-intent act or omission tending directly toward committing the intended crime, regardless of whether the crime is completed.

State v. Kemp · filed 2005-03-11

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended. It is immaterial whether the person actually accomplished his purpose. La. R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act that directly tends toward accomplishing the intended crime, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Hunter · filed 2005-06-29(A)

La. R.S. 14:27 provides: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. To convict a defendant of attempted armed robbery, the state must prove that the defendant, having the specific intent to commit armed robbery, did or omitted an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the taking of anything of value belonging to another, from the person of another or in the immediate control of another, by the use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon. La. R.S. 14:27 and 64; State v. Musgrove, 33,977 (La.App. 2d Cir.12/15/00), 774 So.2d 1155, writ denied, 01-0356 (La.9/28/01), 798 So.2d 112.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent to commit a crime plus an act or omission tending directly toward completing it, regardless of whether the crime would actually have been completed.

State v. George · filed 2005-07-01

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... Defendant's repeated admission that he attempted to rape the victim, supported by the DNA evidence, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that the state proved attempted forcible rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person performs or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, regardless of whether the crime would actually have been completed.

State v. Gatti · filed 2005-10-13(A)

La. R.S. 14:27 provides, in pertinent part: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. Gatti argues that his conviction for attempted aggravated burglary of the Palmer home should be overturned because he did not try to steal anything or commit any felony in the garage. To the contrary, when the gang drove the van into this garage, Gatti tried to force his way into the house, but was stopped by gunfire from the owner.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing the crime, and makes it immaterial whether the crime could actually have been completed.

State v. Draughn · filed 2007-01-17(A)

An attempt occurs when a person "having the specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object. . . ." La. R.S. 14:27(A). Under the definition of attempt, ". . . it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose." Id. Whether or not the perpetrator ultimately took anything of value from Ms. White, a rational juror could find that a person, having the specific intent to kill, performed various actions from which a specific intent to commit armed robbery may be found proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the perpetrator entered the victim's house, stabbed or cut the victim 61 times until she bled to death, and moved throughout her house opening drawers and rummaging through the contents of her purse. We find that the element of first degree murder challenged here, that the murder was committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of armed robbery, was proven to a rational juror beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit the target crime plus an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it; actual completion is immaterial.

State v. Brown · filed 2007-10-03

Attempt is defined by La.R.S. 14:27, which states, in relevant part: A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person performs or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, regardless of whether the crime could actually have been completed.

State v. Buckenberger · filed 2008-02-08

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Shaw · filed 2008-06-18

Viewing all of evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all of the essential elements of the offense of attempted aggravated rape present beyond a reasonable doubt. La. R.S. 14:27 [3] . ... A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines criminal attempt as having specific intent to commit a crime and performing or omitting an act that tends directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Conner · filed 2008-10-01

La. R.S. 14:27 defines an attempt to commit a crime as having a specific intent to commit a crime, and doing or omitting an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing the crime.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as a specific intent to commit a crime accompanied by an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Jeter · filed 2010-04-07

A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... Defendant’s actions indicated he desired to have sexual intercourse with the victim and he used force in an attempt to accomplish the act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing that object.

State v. Collins · filed 2010-06-28(A)

Under La. R.S. 14:27(A), a person is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense when he has a specific intent to 11scommit a crime and “does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person performs or omits an act directed toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Bass · filed 2010-08-11(A)

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... The defendant evidenced an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on Corporal Lambert during the high speed chase. The facts clearly establish the requisites for attempted first degree murder.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing it; actual completion need not be possible.

State v. Miller · filed 2010-11-03

In order to convict the defendant for the crime of attempted second degree murder, the state carried the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to kill Mrs. Bergeron and committed an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishment of killing Mrs. Bergeron.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes an attempt when a person with specific intent commits or omits an act tending directly toward completing the intended crime, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. McCord · filed 2012-02-15

La. R.S. 14:27, which defines “attempt,” states that “[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.” ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational juror that Mr. McCord was a principal to the crime of attempted unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing the intended offense.

State of Louisiana v. Letrakus Tyler AKA Trey Tyler · filed 2012-05-02(A)

Attempt is defined as “Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended.” La. R.S. 14:27(A). The crime of attempted murder, whether first or second degree, requires proof of the specific intent to kill and the commission of an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of that goal. State v. Cepriano, 00-213 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/29/00), 767 So.2d 893, 897. ... Based on Wommack, we find that Defendant’s verbalizing of his intent to kill, along with the fact that he placed his hand over D.C.’s mouth, his putting of a shirt over her face to suffocate her, and his holding of her neck hard enough to cause bruising were sufficient for the trial court to infer that he had the specific intent to kill D.C. Accordingly, we find this assignment of error lacks merit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as conduct performed with specific intent to commit a crime that directly tends toward accomplishing it, even if the crime is not completed.

State v. Joyner · filed 2012-10-24(A)

An attempt occurs when a person, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object; it is immaterial whether he would have actually accomplished his purpose. La. R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward commission of the offense, and permits an attempt conviction even when the intended offense was actually completed.

State of Louisiana v. Rodney L. Johnson, Sr. · filed 2014-06-04(A) (C)

The pertinent part of the attempt statute, La.R.S. 14:27(A), states: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. A defendant may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime even when the evidence at trial shows the attempted or intended crime was actually committed. La.R.S. 14:27(C).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines attempt as specific intent to commit a crime plus an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, and actual completion is immaterial.

State v. Falkins · filed 2014-07-23(A)

Louisiana Revise Statute 14:27(A) defines attempt, in pertinent part, as the specific intent to commit a crime by doing an act for the purposes of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object, it being immaterial whether, under the circumstances, the offender would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent to commit a crime plus an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, regardless of whether the crime could actually have been completed.

State v. Cushenberry · filed 2014-07-16

An attempt is defined by La. R.S. 14:27 as occurring when “[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the | i7accomplishing of his object ... and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Baham · filed 2015-03-11(A)

Attempt is defined as “Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended.” La. R.S. 14:27 A. The crime of attempted murder requires proof of the specific intent to kill and the commission of an overt act tending toward the accomplishment of that goal. ... A rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence showed that defendant had the specific intent to kill Matthews and that he committed an overt act in furtherance of that goal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as a specific-intent act or omission that directly tends toward completing the intended crime, even if the crime is not completed.

State of Louisiana v. Pierre · filed 2015-05-06(A)

Attempt is defined as: Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. La.R.S. 14:27(A). ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts of attempted second degree murder and armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as acting or failing to act with specific intent to commit a crime in a way that directly tends toward completing it, even if the crime is not actually completed.

State v. Wallace · filed 2015-12-23(A)

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall Lbe immaterial whether, under" the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) requires specific intent to commit the intended crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it; the intended crime need not actually be completed.

State v. Falgout · filed 2016-08-24(A)

An attempt is defined -in pertinent part by La. R.S. 14:27: ... A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... While the defendant hints that the evidence did not show that the victim was raped, the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury’s finding that two counts of attempted rape occurred.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing the intended crime.

State v. Bradstreet · filed 2016-06-30(A)

Attempt is. defined as “[a]ny person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended[.]” La. R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit the intended crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, but the intended crime need not actually be completed.

State v. Lapoint · filed 2016-09-28

A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as specific intent plus an act or omission tending directly toward committing the intended crime, regardless of whether success was possible.

State v. Turner · filed 2017-04-05

Attempt is defined in La. R.S. 14:27 as follows: ... Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. ... Specific intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense and the conduct of the defendant. ... The state has the burden of proving that the offender had specific intent to commit the crime and that the offender committed or omitted an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object. ... However, we believe that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Turner was guilty of attempted resisting a police officer with force or violence. ... It thus appears that a jury could have reasonably found that Turner was attempting to injure the officers with the open handcuff.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 defines an attempt as acting or omitting to act with specific intent to commit a crime for the purpose of or tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State ex rel. M.B. · filed 2017-04-19

An attempt occurs when a person who has the specific intent to commit a crime does or omits an act “for the purpose of or tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object....” La. R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing the intended offense, regardless of whether the offense would actually have been completed.

State v. Saulny · filed 2017-05-17

La. R.S. 14:27 provides that any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and, it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission directed toward accomplishing that crime.

State v. Carter · filed 2018-10-10(A)

A person is guilty of an attempt when he, "having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended[.]" La.R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of an attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person performs or omits an act intended and tending directly toward accomplishing it.

State v. Burch · filed 2018-11-14

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishment of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended. La. R.S. 14:27.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act directed toward accomplishing that crime.

State v. Lampley · filed 2018-11-02(A)

Under La. R.S. 14:27(A), a person is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense when he has a specific intent to commit a crime and "does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as requiring specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State of Louisiana v. Garnett · filed 2019-01-23(A)

The presence of the condom wrapper supports not only intent, but an act “tending directly toward the accomplishing” the crime as set forth in the attempt statute. La.R.S. 14:27(A).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person performs or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State of Louisiana v. Latique · filed 2019-02-20

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 makes an attempt criminal when a person with specific intent commits or omits an act tending directly toward committing the intended crime, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State v. Douglas · filed 2019-04-10

An attempt is defined by La. R.S. 14:27 as any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent and an act or omission tending directly toward the intended crime; mere preparation is insufficient.

State of Louisiana v. Dukes · filed 2019-10-02

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent to commit a crime and an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it; mere preparation is insufficient, and whether conduct is an overt act depends on the totality of the circumstances.

State of Louisiana v. Dukes · filed 2019-10-02

In State v. Jones, the Supreme Court discussed what constitutes an overt act, the second element necessary for an attempt. ... The attempt statute makes a distinction between actions which are “mere preparation” and are not sufficient to constitute attempt, and acts which are committed for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of the criminal object. ... Where a defendant’s actions fall on the continuum is a question for the trier of fact and is determined by evaluating the “the totality of the facts and circumstances presented by each case.” ... The overt act need not be the ultimate step toward or the last possible act in the consummation of the crime attempted, and it is the intent to commit the crime, not the possibility of success, that determines whether the act or omission constitutes the crime of attempt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as an act done for the purpose of and tending directly toward accomplishing the intended crime.

State of Louisiana v. Vaccaro · filed 2021-03-17(A)

An attempt is the commission or omission of “an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object[.]” La.R.S. 14:27(A). ... We find these facts showed the jury could have reasonably believed Defendant intentionally placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery involving a firearm. Defendant’s behavior would very reasonably result in the victim’s apprehension of harm. The jury weighed the evidence and made credibility determinations; according to those determinations, we find the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of attempted aggravated assault with a firearm.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as specific intent to commit a crime plus an act or omission tending directly toward accomplishing it, regardless of whether the crime would actually have been completed.

State of Louisiana v. D'Mycal Lmontay Turner · filed 2022-04-13(A)

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits the sentence for an attempt to no more than half of the maximum sentence possible for the crime attempted.

State of Louisiana v. Grimsley · filed 2023-09-27(D)(3)

La. R.S. 14:27 provides the definition and punishment for the crime of attempting to commit a crime. Subsection (D)(3) thereof is the applicable sentencing provision. It dictates that the sentence for attempt can be no more than half of the maximum sentence possible for the crime attempted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as a specific-intent crime accompanied by an act or omission tending directly toward its accomplishment, and Section 14:27(D)(1)(a) provides a sentence of 10 to 50 years at hard labor without benefits when the attempted offense is punishable by life imprisonment.

State of Louisiana v. Lynn · filed 2024-02-28(A) (D)(1)(a)

An attempt to commit an offense occurs when any person, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object. La. R.S. 14:27(A). ... If the attempted offense is punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than 10 nor more than 50 years without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. La. R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) makes a person guilty of attempt when, with specific intent to commit a crime, the person does or omits an act tending directly toward accomplishing it, regardless of whether the crime could actually be completed.

State of Louisiana v. Galloway · filed 2024-04-10(A)

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) defines an attempt as an act or omission, undertaken with specific intent to commit a crime, that tends directly toward accomplishing it, even if the crime would not actually have been completed.

State of Louisiana v. Watson · filed 2024-11-27(A)

Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) applies when a defendant takes direct steps toward committing sexual battery but is prevented from completing it.

State of Louisiana v. Coliston · filed 2025-08-27(A)

Count 3, attempted sexual battery of TB, she described an incident on Hwy. 2 when Coliston came into the room, got in the bed with her, pulled down her clothes, and choked her, but she was able to push him away. This obviously meets the criteria for an attempt, La. R.S. 14:27 (A), to commit sexual battery.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Attempted armed robbery—sufficiency of evidence

Section 14:27 applies to an attempted armed robbery when the evidence permits a jury to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants intended to rob the store, even though they did not ask for money.

State v. Johnson · filed 1978-11-13

The defendants principally contend that, because Porter and Johnson (the armed individuals who approached and shot the store employees) did not ask for money, there is no evidence that an armed robbery was intended. ... Under the evidence presented to the jury, it could reasonably infer that beyond a reasonable doubt Porter, Johnson, and Winfield were in a group which intended through Porter and Johnson to rob the store, with Winfield through his vehicle to provide the means of escaping from the scene after the intended robbery. ... We find no merit to these assignments of error.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27, together with La. R.S. 14:64(B), requires an attempted armed robbery sentence ranging from five years to forty-nine years and six months before the firearm enhancement.

State v. Adams · filed 2011-06-01

As to the Lapaz count, the district court shall sentence Mr. Adams to hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for a period not less than five years, nor more than forty-nine years and six months, as provided by La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:64 B (with credit for time served), and to an additional period at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence for a period of five years, to be served consecutively to the preceding period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A) does not require a completed taking for attempted armed robbery when the evidence establishes intent to take something of value.

State v. Debrow · filed 2002-02-27(A)

For the crime of attempted armed robbery, the act of taking something of value need not be established so long as the evidence is sufficient to establish the intent to take something |sof value.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(A)’s attempt elements were satisfied by evidence that the defendant assaulted the victim while trying to rape her, despite the absence of penetration.

State v. Vargas-Alcerreca · filed 2013-10-02A

Viewing the above evidence and all the other record evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of attempted forcible rape present beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Penalty for attempt to commit a crime punishable by death

Section 14:27(D)(1)(a) requires a sentence for an attempt to commit a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment to be served at hard labor.

State v. Jackson · filed 2018-01-10(D)(1)(a)

Because La. R.S. 14:27(D)(1)(a) requires that the sentence be served at hard labor, the trial court's error is harmless and self-correcting.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 14:27(D)(1) provides that an attempt to commit a crime punishable by death is punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than fifty years, and the resulting sentence cannot be made without benefit of parole.

State v. Welch · filed 1979-01-29(D)(1)

The penalty for attempt to commit a crime punishable by death was imprisonment at hard labor for not more than fifty years. La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1) (as amended by Act 132 of 1975). Therefore, the sentence of 25 years imprisonment for attempted aggravated rape could not, as a matter of law, be without benefit of parole.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27(D)(1) provides a maximum fifty-year hard-labor sentence for an attempt to commit an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment and does not prohibit parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Carry · filed 1984-11-14(D)(1)

According to the case of State v. Green, 391 So.2d 833 (La.1980), the applicable sentencing statute for attempted aggravated rape, La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1), [1] does not prohibit eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(1) permits a sentence of up to fifty years at hard labor when the attempted offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

State v. Prejean · filed 1986-11-05(D)(1)

In addition, La.R.S. 14:27 establishes the sentences for attempted crimes. It provides: ... (1) If the offense so attempted is punishable by death or life imprisonment, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than fifty years....” Thus, the maximum penalty which a defendant convicted of attempted aggravated rape could receive is fifty years imprisonment at hard labor.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits the sentence for attempted aggravated rape to fifty years at hard labor when read with the completed-offense penalty in § 14:42.

State v. Waymire · filed 1987-03-04

The maximum sentence which can be imposed for attempted aggravated rape is fifty years at hard labor. La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:42.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 14:27(D)(1) sets the sentence for an attempt to commit an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment and does not prohibit parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Mareno · filed 1988-06-21(D)(1)

The applicable sentencing statute for attempted aggravated kidnapping, La.R.S. 14:27(D)(1) [2] , does not prohibit eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence. See, State v. See, 467 So.2d 525 (La.1985).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 combines with the statute defining a completed offense to make an attempt to commit that offense a cognizable crime, even when the legislature has not separately named the attempt.

State v. Trackling · filed 2006-01-19(C)

Attempted sexual battery is a cognizable offense in the same way that attempted first degree murder and second degree murder are cognizable offenses; not because the legislature has specifically denominated the crimes, but because the definitions of the completed offenses in LSA-R.S. 14:30 and 14:30.1 coalesce with the general attempt statute, LSA-R.S. 14:27, to produce that result. All crimes in Louisiana are statutory. There can be no crime which is not defined and denounced by statute. In this instance, sexual battery is a crime denounced and defined by statute, LSA-R.S. 14:43.1. Another statute, LSA-R.S. 14:27, makes an attempt to commit a crime an offense. These two provisions coalesce, with the result that the offense charged, attempted sexual battery, is a crime denounced and defined to be such under the statutory laws of this state.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 can be harmonized with the DWI statute to make attempted DWI a cognizable crime in Louisiana.

State v. DEW · filed 2007-10-17

Attempted DWI, while certainly a rare event, is nonetheless a possible crime. ... We find that it is of no moment that in Louisiana, the crime of attempted DWI requires the additional harmonization of the attempt statute, La. R.S. 14:27, with DWI, La. R.S. 14:98.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

When an attempt cannot be committed

Section 14:27 treats an attempt as a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime, but an attempted offense is unavailable when the attempt and completed offense have identical elements, as with attempted concealment of a weapon.

State v. Dyer · filed 1980-09-24

La.R.S. 14:27 provides that an attempt, specific intent to commit a crime and an act in furtherance of the purpose, is a separate but lesser grade of the intended crime and La.R.S. 14:5 provides that one who commits an offense which includes all of the elements of other lesser offenses may be prosecuted for and convicted of either the greater offense or one of the lesser and included offenses. In prosecutions for illegal carrying of weapons, the state must prove that a defendant specifically intended to conceal the weapon on his person. Because a defendant's guilt is based on his intent to conceal, rather than the extent of his concealment, his conduct would be such that he either did or did not commit the substantive offense. In other words, the nature of the offense is such that proof of the attempted offense proves the substantive offense, as the elements of the attempted offense are the same as that of the substantive offense. Hence, it is obvious that attempted concealment, comprising the identical elements, cannot be a "lesser grade" of La.R.S. 14:95(A)(1). Proof of the elements of attempted concealment would not be proof of a "lesser offense" under La.R.S. 14:5 but would be proof of the greater offense alone. Accordingly, we agree with the trial judge's ruling that there can be no attempt to carry a concealed weapon.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires specific intent for an attempt, so attempted criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect is legally impossible.

State v. Strother · filed 2009-10-07(A)

Where the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree cruelty to juveniles because there was minimal evidence submitted which could have established that the injury to the victim’s arm was inflicted on February 2, 2007, by Defendant, it is axiomatic that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted second degree cruelty to a juvenile under the theory of intentional mistreatment or neglect. Further, criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect is a legal impossibility for the reasons put forth in State v. Cortez, 96-859 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/96), 687 So.2d 515.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 does not permit an attempted failure to register as a sex offender because failure to register is not a specific intent crime.

State v. Williams · filed 2012-07-18

There is no such crime as an attempt to not register as a sex offender. The crime of failure to register is not a specific intent crime. One either fails to register or not. One can not attempt to not register.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Attempt—penalties

For an attempt, § 14:27(D)(3) permits imprisonment in the same manner as for the attempted offense but limits imprisonment to no more than one-half of that offense’s longest prescribed term.

State of Louisiana v. Hearnsberger · filed 2023-03-01(D)(3)

The penalty for an attempt is imprisonment in the same manner as for the offense attempted, with imprisonment that does not exceed one-half of the longest term prescribed for the offense attempted, La. R.S. 14:27 D(3). In this case, the maximum sentence was 49½ years at hard labor.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits the punishment for an attempted crime to no more than one-half of the longest imprisonment term or largest fine prescribed for the completed offense.

State of Louisiana v. Green · filed 2023-04-05(D)(3)

La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3), which provides the penalties when a person is found guilty of attempted crimes, states that he: shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Subsection (D)(3) limits punishment for an attempted crime to the same type of punishment as the completed offense and no more than half its maximum fine or imprisonment term.

State of Louisiana v. Keuntrel Rayshun Knight · filed 2022-03-09(D)(3)

[s]hall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 281 of 2017 made Schedule II possession penalties weight-dependent. The quoted 2½-year attempted maximum governs the March 2017 offense, not all later offenses.

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits imprisonment for an attempted offense to one-half of the longest term prescribed for the completed offense; here, attempted possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance carried a maximum sentence of 2½ years and a fine of up to $2,500.

State v. Robinson · filed 2018-11-14(D)(3)

A defendant convicted of attempted possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance (cocaine and methadone) for an act which occurred in March 2017 could be sentenced to a maximum sentence of 2½ years with or without hard labor and, in addition, could be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than $2,500. ... Here, Defendant was improperly sentenced to serve 12 years at hard labor on Counts One and Two, exceeding the maximum possible sentence he could have received by almost 10 years. Neither party raised the error at sentencing or in their appellate briefs. Accordingly, Defendant's sentences on Counts One and Two are vacated and remanded for resentencing under La. R.S. 14:27 and 40:967(C)(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 requires an attempted-offense sentence to be imposed in the same manner as the offense attempted, including the applicable sentencing restriction of benefits.

State v. Benoit · filed 2017-12-29(D)(3)

Although these cases deal with aggravated incest and not attempted aggravated incest, La. R.S. 14:27 requires that defendant shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; this additional sentencing requirement applies in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) requires an attempt to be punished in the same manner as the completed offense, except that the fine or imprisonment may not exceed one-half of the maximum prescribed for that offense.

State v. Patterson · filed 1971-06-28D(3)

This result is also dictated by the language of the attempt statute (La.Crim. Code art. 27D [3]) providing that person convicted of "attempt" shall be fined and imprisoned in "the same manner" as for the offense attempted; but such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both. In the case of "attempted armed robbery" the phrase "in the same manner" means that except for the term of imprisonment, which is specifically provided for, the other aspects of the fine or imprisonment shall be "in the same manner" as provided for armed robbery; that is, "at hard labor" and "without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence."
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) makes an attempt punishable in the same manner as the attempted offense, but limits the fine or imprisonment to one-half of that offense's maximum, so an attempt to fraudulently procure food punishable by hard labor is a felony.

Keys v. Sambo's Restaurant, Inc. · filed 1980-10-08(D)(3)

Under 14:27 D(3) an attempt to fraudulently procure food from a restaurant would be a felony just like the parent offense because the offender would be fined or imprisoned “in the same manner as for the offense attempted” except that the fine or imprisonment would not exceed one-half of the maximum fine or imprisonment prescribed for the offense attempted. ... Since R.S. 21:21 provides that the offender may be imprisoned at hard labor, one guilty of an attempt may be imprisoned in the same manner-at hard labor.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 imposes no minimum sentence for attempted armed robbery and caps the term of imprisonment at one-half the longest term prescribed for the completed offense.

State v. Barrose · filed 1985-04-15(D)(3)

R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides that a person convicted of an attempt (in all cases except an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment or an offense of attempted theft or receiving stolen things) shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted, however, such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted. Since R.S. 14:27 provides for a rendition of only the maximum sentence and is silent as to the minimum, the question arises as to whether the minimum sentence for an attempted armed robbery is zero, two and one-half, or five years. ... Hence, it was error when the trial judge said the minimum sentence was two and one-half years.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) permits up to six years of imprisonment, with or without hard labor, a fine up to $1,000, or both, for an attempt in the residual category.

State v. Brown · filed 1987-03-04(D)(3)

Defendant was found guilty of attempted simple burglary which carries a penalty of a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment with or without hard labor for not more than six years, or both. La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) and 14:62. Here, defendant received the maximum prison term of six years at hard labor. ... After a careful review of the record and the trial court's explanation of sentence under La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, we conclude that the sentence is not excessive and is not an abuse of the much discretion granted to a trial court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits the sentence for an attempted felony to no more than one-half of the longest term prescribed for the completed offense and requires it to be imposed in the same manner.

State v. Knight · filed 1989-08-24(D)(3)

For attempted distribution the sentence can not exceed one-half the longest term prescribed, fifteen years, and in the same manner as for the offense. La.R.S. 14:27 D(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) provides no minimum sentence for an attempted crime, limits the punishment to one-half of the maximum for the completed offense, and carries over the completed offense’s restrictions on probation, parole, or suspension.

State v. Dorsey · filed 1998-06-24(D)(3)

Although there is no minimum sentence for attempted crimes under La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3), State v. Callahan, 95-1331 (La.3/29/96), 671 So.2d 903, the sentence for attempt is to be imposed "in the same manner as for the offense attempted." This "same manner" language incorporates the benefits disability of the original statute. See State v. Middlebrook, 409 So.2d 588 (La. 1982).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) requires an attempted offense to be fined or imprisoned in the same manner as the completed offense, including any statutory prohibition on probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

State v. Mark · filed 1999-03-24(D)(3)

La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) provides that a person convicted of an “attempt” crime shall be fined or imprisoned “in the same manner as for the offense attempted”. ... Therefore, the trial court could not legally suspend the defendant’s sentence in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 531 of 2010 introduced value-based attempted-theft tiers in § 14:27(D)(2)(c); attempts involving theft over $25,000 can now carry up to five years with or without hard labor and a $2,000 fine.

Section 14:27(D)(2) limits the punishment for an attempted felony theft to a fine of up to $500, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

State v. Maricle · filed 2008-12-10(D)(2)

Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:27(D)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]f the offense so attempted is theft, and is punishable as a felony, [the Defendant] shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both[.]"
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27(D)(3) limits punishment for an attempt in other cases to one-half of the maximum fine or imprisonment prescribed for the completed offense, including one-half of a restriction on benefits.

State of Louisiana Versus Leroy Tate · filed 2023-04-26(D)(3)

La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3), the attempt statute, provides, “In all other cases he shall be fined or imprisoned or both, in the same manner as for the offense attempted; such fine or imprisonment shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.” Thus, the trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence by failing to stipulate that at least one year of defendant’s sentence for attempted second degree kidnapping, which is one-half of the statutory restriction, be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits the sentence for an attempt to half the maximum term for the completed offense and requires imprisonment to carry the same restrictions on probation, parole, and suspension of sentence.

State v. DELVALLE · filed 2011-09-21

Therefore, at the time of the commission of the present offense, the maximum sentence for attempted possession of a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon by a person convicted of certain felonies was seven and one-half years, and any sentence imposed was required to be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 14:27 limits imprisonment for attempted carjacking to half the longest term allowed for carjacking, with the same restrictions on benefits.

State v. Taylor · filed 2012-08-08(D)(3)

Taylor was convicted of attempted carjacking, subjecting him to be sentenced in the same manner as the offense attempted, but with the sentencing range reduced to half the longest sentence available, in this case, from zero to 10 years at hard labor, without benefits.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Notes 1–150 of 780, oldest cases first.

992 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

State v. Tytus, the statute is cited only in the introductory description of the offense; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bolden, the statute is cited only in a dissent to identify the offense of conviction and state that it was a responsive verdict; the opinion does not interpret or decide what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Williams, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction in the procedural history; the court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Walker, the statute is cited only to identify the statutory basis for the defendant's conviction; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Riley, the statute is cited only to identify the provisions underlying the attempted-armed-robbery conviction and sentence; the court does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Edmonson, the statute is cited only to identify the offenses underlying the conviction; the court decided the bill of particulars and pretrial discovery issue, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Evans, the statute is cited only in the opening description of the offense underlying the conviction; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. McCormick, the statute is cited only in the procedural description of the offense of conviction; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lee, the statute is cited only to identify the offense of conviction. The court affirmed based on the procedural and evidentiary issues raised and did not interpret or decide what La. R.S. 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Hampton, the majority merely cites La.R.S. 14:27 in identifying the statutes underlying the conviction; it does not interpret or apply the statute. The dissent likewise refers to the statute only in describing the indictment. opinion →
State v. Scott, La.R.S. 14:27 is mentioned only in a concurring justice's analogy concerning specific intent; the court does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Wikberg v. Henderson, section 14:27 is cited only in the procedural history to identify the attempted armed robbery charge. The court did not interpret or decide what the statute means or requires; its holding concerned double jeopardy based on the felony-murder provision of La.R.S. 14:30 and the relationship between the offenses. opinion →
State v. Russell, the opinion cites La.R.S. 14:27 in describing the charge and reproduces its definition in a footnote, but it does not interpret or apply the statute's requirements. The holding concerns the sufficiency of the indictment's reference to La.R.S. 14:42 and the constitutional notice requirement. opinion →
State v. Selman, section 14:27 appears only in the dissent's description of the penalty for attempted aggravated rape as part of its constitutional argument; the court did not construe or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Walker, the statute is cited only to identify the offenses charged and convicted; the court does not interpret or apply the elements or requirements of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. McGloster, La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 is cited only as one of the statutes supporting the conviction; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute's requirements. opinion →
State v. Hunter, section 14:27 appears only in a dissent's description of 1973 legislative amendments; the majority does not construe or apply that statute, and the decision instead concerns jury sequestration under C.Cr.P. art. 791. opinion →
State v. Shillow, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Beard, the court mentioned La.R.S. 14:27 only as one statute underlying the attempted-rape conviction. Its analysis concerned the responsive-verdict provision in Art. 814, C.Cr.P., and the definition of simple rape in La.R.S. 14:43, without construing or applying § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Flores, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the statute underlying the defendant's conviction; the court's holding concerns mental capacity to proceed and does not interpret or apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Cloud, the court cited La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense underlying the convictions in the procedural background. It did not construe or decide anything about the statute; its holdings addressed identification, search and seizure, chain of custody, mistrial, and directed verdict issues. opinion →
State v. Stewart, the opinion identifies La.R.S. 14:27 only as one statute underlying the conviction; the court does not interpret, define, or otherwise decide what the attempt statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Clark, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only in describing the charge. The court's analysis concerns the elements and constitutionality of La.R.S. 14:110, subd. B, and does not construe or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Liesk, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, section 14:27 appears only in a string citation supporting the court's ruling on the responsiveness of a lesser verdict under the Code of Criminal Procedure; the opinion does not interpret, explain, or independently apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Sims, the statute is cited only in the opening description of the offense charged. The court's decision concerns pretrial discovery and does not interpret or apply the elements or requirements of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Spain, the statute is cited only to identify the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty; the opinion does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Butler, section 14:27 is mentioned only in a footnote as a possible charge in appropriate cases; the court does not interpret the statute or decide how it applies. opinion →
State v. Trahan, the opinion merely identifies § 14:27 as one of the statutes underlying defendant's attempted-murder conviction; it does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Womack, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying defendant's conviction. The court decided the constitutionality of the Habitual Offender Law, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davis, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged; the court does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lensey, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged; the court's decision concerns the excessiveness of the sentence and does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hamilton, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court decided the sufficiency of the indictment under La.C.Cr.P. art. 465, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Ford, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted armed robbery conviction; the court's analysis concerns venue, preliminary-examination testimony, hearsay, and evidentiary rulings, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, the opinion cites La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statute under which the attempted armed-robbery conviction was charged; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Miller, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the statute underlying the attempted-murder charge; the court's decision concerns jury instructions on justification and self-defense, not the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Selman, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 D(l) only to state the historical maximum penalty for attempted aggravated rape while selecting a resentencing term; it did not interpret or otherwise decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Watts, the court mentions § 14:27 D(l) only to identify the legislatively authorized penalty used in resentencing; it does not interpret or decide what the statute requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Williams, the opinion cites La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the attempted aggravated rape charge; it does not interpret or apply the statute's definition or requirements, and instead addresses the excessiveness of the sentence. opinion →
State v. McMorris, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the attempted armed robbery charge. The court does not interpret or apply the requirements of the attempt statute; the discussion instead concerns the dangerous-weapon element under La. R.S. 14:2(3) and procedural preservation of the evidence issue. opinion →
State v. Anderson, the court only reported that La. R.S. 14:27 was read as part of the trial judge's general jury charge. The rehearing decision construed the specific-intent requirement of La. R.S. 14:62, not the definition of attempt in § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, the majority mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statutes underlying the charge. It does not interpret or apply § 14:27, and the dissent's discussion concerns the sufficiency of the bill of information rather than a construction of the statute adopted by the court. opinion →
State v. Serigne, the opinion only identifies the statute as the basis for the charge; it does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Rhodes, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction; the opinion does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27, and the statement is procedural history. opinion →
State v. Dupar, the statute appears only in the description of the attempted charges; the court does not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Proctor, section 14:27 is cited only as an authority for the attempted-murder charges in the procedural history; the court does not construe or decide what the statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Jones, the statute is cited only to identify the charges in the procedural history. The court's decision concerns exclusion of a witness after a sequestration violation and constitutional compulsory-process rights, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Martin, section 14:27 appears in the charging citation and in a passing string citation to the circumstantial-evidence rule. The court resolved the case by applying the evidence to the attempted-armed-robbery conviction without construing or explaining what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Mallett, La.R.S. 14:27 appears only as part of the attempted-theft charge described in the procedural history. The court did not interpret, define, or apply the statute's requirements; its ruling concerned the sufficiency of the contributing-to-delinquency charge and the erroneous citation to La.R.S. 14:92(9). opinion →
State v. Drew, section 14:27 appears only in the defendant's alternative sentencing argument; the court rejected the arguments without construing or applying the statute. opinion →
State v. Lawson, the statute is cited only in the procedural description of the charges; the court remanded the case on a witness's privilege against self-incrimination and did not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Shannon, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only in identifying the statute cited in the bill of information charging attempted second degree murder. The court decided a procedural issue concerning remand for a new-trial hearing and did not interpret or apply the elements or requirements of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davis, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the attempted-murder charge in the information. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it simply affirmed the convictions and sentences. opinion →
State v. Lewis, the opinion cites La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty. The court decided issues concerning withdrawal of the guilty plea and multiple-offender sentencing, without interpreting or applying the attempted-crime statute. opinion →
State v. Benwoir, the statute is cited only to identify the offenses to which the defendant pleaded guilty; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Nguyen, the statute is cited only as part of the statutory basis for the defendant's attempted-receiving conviction in the procedural history. The court analyzes La.R.S. 14:69, not the meaning or application of La.R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Jackson, section 14:27 appears only in the opening procedural description of the charge. The court decided the appeal on the admissibility of other-crime evidence under La.R.S. 15:445-448 and did not construe or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Cox, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the attempted-murder charge; the court does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Johnson, section 14:27 is mentioned only as part of the charge described in the procedural history; the court did not construe or apply that statute in deciding the appeal. opinion →
State v. Warner, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying a charge in the procedural history; the court did not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Wisham, the statute is cited only to identify the offense of conviction. The court's decision concerns juror testimony, extraneous prejudicial conduct, and the motion for a new trial under La.R.S. 15:470; it does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Watkins, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted first degree murder charge in the procedural background; the court does not interpret or apply § 14:27 and decides only that the challenge to the guilty plea was not properly raised on appeal. opinion →
State v. Martin, the statute is mentioned only in the introductory procedural history to identify the offense of conviction. The court decides sentencing and resentencing issues under La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 and the delay in resentencing, without construing or applying La.R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Sudds, the statute is cited only to identify the offense of conviction in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Carthan, the court merely recited the statutory maximum while reviewing whether the sentence was excessive; it did not interpret or otherwise decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27(D)(1) operates. opinion →
State v. Lee, the opinion only mentions La.R.S. 14:27 in describing the charges against defendant; it does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Upton, the statute is cited only to identify the reduced misdemeanor charge in the procedural history; the court's decision addresses sentencing defects under the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Wisham, section 14:27 is mentioned only in the opening procedural description of the defendant's conviction. The court's analysis and holding concern La.R.S. 15:470 and juror testimony, not the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. McMillin, the statute is cited only to identify the offenses underlying the defendant’s conviction and prior sentence. The court’s decision concerns speedy-trial prescription under La. C.Cr.P. arts. 578 and 579, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Glynn, the court expressly declined to decide the conclusions under § 14:27; its discussion of the statute merely recounts the trial court’s sentencing rationale while the remand rested on use of the wrong rape statute. opinion →
State v. Ramos, the court mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 to identify the offense and its maximum sentence, but does not construe the statute or decide a disputed question about its meaning, requirements, coverage, or application. opinion →
State v. Bice, the statute appears only in the procedural description of the charges; the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Dunn, the statute is cited in a footnote only to explain that the charged attempted theft was a misdemeanor; the court's decision concerns the validity of the guilty plea under Boykin and does not construe or apply § 14:27(D)(2) as the basis for the ruling. opinion →
State v. Arbo, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Upton, the court mentioned § 14:27 to identify the offense and its sentencing range while deciding whether the resentencing was more severe and adequately explained. It did not construe the attempt statute or decide an issue about its meaning, requirements, or application. opinion →
State v. Hart, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the attempted-murder charge. The court's decision concerns the legality of the sentence under La. C.Cr.P. Art. 879 and does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davenport, the court mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying the attempted-murder charges. Its holdings concern disclosure of witness statements under Brady and sentencing, not the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Guiden, the court merely cited La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 in describing the possible sentencing ranges for the attempted offenses and concluded that the sentences were within the statutory range; it did not construe or decide any issue about the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Smith, the statute is mentioned only in the description of the charge; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27, and the decision concerns evidentiary and juror issues. opinion →
State v. Meredith, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 in describing the offense of conviction and its possible sentencing range, but the court did not interpret or apply the attempt statute; it decided issues concerning continuance, confession voluntariness, and sentence excessiveness. opinion →
State v. Stewart, the opinion merely identifies La.R.S. 14:27 as one of the statutes cited in the attempted-murder charge. The court does not interpret the attempt statute or decide what it requires; its holding addresses due process, responsive verdicts, and proof of the underlying felony. opinion →
State v. Gray, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted aggravated rape charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. McGinnis, the statute is cited only to identify the charge in the procedural history; the court's decision concerns use of a prior out-of-state guilty plea for multiple-offender enhancement, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Ezernack, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the lesser offense to which the defendant pleaded. The decision concerns excessive sentencing and compliance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1; it does not interpret, define, or apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Bice, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the charge; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Messer, the court cites La. R.S. 14:27 only in the procedural history to identify the statute underlying the attempted-murder charges; it does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Buttner, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged and in the procedural history. The court held that the defendant was tried and convicted without a valid written Bill of Information, construing Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure articles 384 and 691, not La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Carter, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the statute underlying the attempted first degree murder charge. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lavigne, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as one of the provisions underlying the attempted armed robbery charge; the court decided the severance issue and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Frith, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offenses charged in the procedural history; the court decides the case on voir dire restrictions and does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, the statute appears only in the procedural history to identify the offense originally charged; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Thibodeaux, the statute is mentioned only in the description of the charge and procedural history. The court's decision concerns the admissibility and relevance of the defendant's courtroom clothing demonstration, and does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Thompson, the statute is mentioned only to identify the attempted-murder charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Dura, the statute appears only in the procedural history identifying the lesser offense to which the trial court accepted defendant’s plea; the appellate court did not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Walker, section 14:27 appears in the description of the charge and is later included in a sentencing-range citation, but the court did not construe or decide the meaning or application of the attempt statute. Its rulings concerned the improper separate habitual-offender sentences and the trial court's failure to comply with La.C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1. opinion →
State v. Aylor, the statute appears only in the description of the indictment and is not construed or applied by the court; the decision concerns competency to proceed and withdrawal of the guilty plea. opinion →
State v. Raymo, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the statute underlying the attempted-forgery charge. The court's holding concerns the intent-to-defraud element of forgery under La.R.S. 14:72, not the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Stucke, the statute is mentioned only to identify the charge in the procedural history. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it decided issues concerning identification evidence, expert testimony, sentencing, and mistrial. opinion →
State v. Jett, the statute appears only in the description of the charge against the defendant. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Cavazos, the court merely cited La. R.S. 14:27 in stating the defendant's parole eligibility and disposition; it did not interpret, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Chaisson, the court cites La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense of conviction; it does not construe the statute or decide what it requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Shelton, the court mentioned La.R.S. 14:27 only while calculating the statutory maximum relevant to its review of sentence excessiveness; it did not construe or decide what the statute means, requires, or covers. opinion →
State v. Rachal, the statute is mentioned only to identify the reduced charge in the procedural history; the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Coleman, the statute is mentioned in the procedural history to identify the charged and convicted offenses and is cited as part of the statement of the applicable sentencing maximum. The court does not interpret, explain, or otherwise decide a legal issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Collins, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the statute underlying the charge. The court decided the admissibility of evidence supporting self-defense, not the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Jennings, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the statute underlying the original charge and the later guilty plea; the court did not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Brooks, the court merely lists La. R.S. 14:27 among the statutes establishing the sentencing limits for attempted simple burglary; it does not interpret or apply the statute's requirements. opinion →
State v. Turner, section 14:27 is cited in the charging history and in a footnote solely to calculate the potential sentence for attempted manslaughter; the court does not construe or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Moore, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the maximum sentence for the attempted-murder offense while reviewing whether the sentence was excessive; the court does not construe the statute or decide a question about its requirements or application. opinion →
State v. Robinson, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 as part of the charging statute and cites it in reciting the elements required for this conviction, but it does not interpret, define, or otherwise decide what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Sisk, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offenses charged in the procedural background. The court did not construe or decide anything about the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Smith, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged; the court does not interpret, explain, or decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. House, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to describe the offense of conviction; the court does not construe or otherwise decide anything about La.R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Chaney, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court decided the excessiveness of the sentence for aggravated battery and did not interpret or apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Blackburn, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying the charge; the court’s decision concerns the motion for new trial, sentencing, and remand, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Day, section 14:27 is cited as part of the charge and its text is reproduced in a footnote, but the court does not interpret or apply any disputed requirement of the attempt statute; it only reviews the evidence for sufficiency. opinion →
State v. Davenport, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction. The court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; its analysis concerns jury selection, continuance, evidence, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing. opinion →
State v. Shannon, the statute appears only in the description of the charge in the procedural history. The court did not interpret, explain, or decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 applies; its rulings concerned the new-trial motion, evidentiary assignments, and sentencing. opinion →
State v. Baldwin, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 in describing the offense and reproduces its text in a footnote, but it does not construe or apply the attempt statute. The issues decided concerned impeachment evidence and excessive sentencing. opinion →
State v. Nealy, the statute appears only in the procedural history describing the indictment; the court did not interpret, explain, or decide anything about the requirements or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Pettaway, section 14:27 appears only in the opening description of the conviction; the court does not interpret or apply the statute, and its analysis concerns other issues. opinion →
State v. Elzy, the opinion merely identifies La.R.S. 14:27 as the statute underlying the attempted aggravated rape conviction. The court does not interpret or apply the attempt statute; its sufficiency analysis concerns the elements and circumstances of aggravated rape under La.R.S. 14:42. opinion →
State v. Owen, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted second degree murder charge in the procedural background; the court decided the search-and-seizure suppression issue and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Calzadilla, the court mentions § 14:27 to identify the attempted-murder charge and quotes its text in a footnote, but it does not construe the statute or decide a statute-specific issue; its sufficiency analysis applies the Jackson v. Virginia standard and discusses the evidence of intent. opinion →
State v. Lockhart, the court quoted § 14:27 to identify the legal definition of attempt while comparing the evidence required for attempted forcible rape and aggravated burglary under the double-jeopardy same-evidence test. It did not construe or independently decide an issue about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. White, the court mentions § 14:27 in describing the charge and reproduces its text in a footnote, but it decides only confession-voluntariness and sentencing issues and does not construe or apply the statute's requirements. opinion →
State v. Williams, the statute appears only in the introductory description of the charges and is not interpreted or applied by the court; the opinion addresses evidentiary and procedural issues instead. opinion →
State v. Dixon, the statute appears only in the procedural history describing the charges in the indictment. The court did not construe La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 or decide what it requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Alexander, the statute is cited to identify the attempted aggravated rape offense and to report the result of the defendant's prior appeal. This opinion does not construe or independently explain La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Wiley, the statute is cited in the opening procedural description to identify the attempted-simple-burglary conviction. The court’s reference to the six-year maximum is only part of its excessive-sentence analysis; it does not construe § 14:27 or decide what it requires, whom it covers, or how its terms apply. opinion →
State v. Sanders, the court references § 14:27 in describing the charge and calculating the statutory sentencing maximum, but it does not construe, explain, or decide any issue about the statute itself. opinion →
State v. Cass, the statute is cited only to identify the amended charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Coleman, the statute appears only in a footnote listing the statutory basis for a sentence imposed below; the court did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Ratcliff, the statute is mentioned only to identify the statutory basis of the charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Champagne, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court's decision concerns the plea bargain and sentencing, and does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lawrence, the statute appears only in the description of the charge and is not interpreted or applied by the court; the opinion simply reviews the record for patent errors and affirms. opinion →
State v. Capps, the opinion reports the defendant's conviction for attempted forcible rape and reproduces the statute in a footnote, but it does not interpret or apply § 14:27; the appeal addresses jury selection, sentencing, and excessiveness. opinion →
State v. Price, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted second degree murder charge. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; its ruling concerned the validity of the guilty plea to aggravated burglary and the need to amend the information under La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 487. opinion →
State v. See, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only in describing the offense charged and its possible maximum penalty; it does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute's requirements. opinion →
Langley v. Ryder, the court mentioned La.R.S. 14:27 only in listing the attempted second degree murder jurisdiction issue. It resolved the charge under federal jurisdiction statutes and did not interpret, apply, or decide what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Rogers, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only in describing the charges brought against Rogers. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute; its analysis concerns the mistrial motion and sentence excessiveness. opinion →
State v. Miller, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only while recounting the attempted-murder penalty in its discussion of the defendant's excessive-sentence claim. It does not construe the statute or decide what it requires or how it applies; the holding concerns sentencing discretion and affirms the sentence. opinion →
State v. Fraser, La. R.S. 14:27 is mentioned only as part of the charging description and the opinion does not interpret or apply its elements or requirements; the court instead decides the suppression issue and the legality and correction procedure for the armed-robbery sentence. opinion →
State v. Mouton, the court merely identified § 14:27 as one of the statutes defining attempted simple burglary and later noted the statutory sentencing limits; it did not interpret, explain, or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Brisco, the court cites § 14:27 only to identify the offenses charged and convicted; it does not construe, explain, or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the statute appears only in a footnote discussing an uncorrected citation in the bill of information and whether the error prejudiced defendant. The court does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bradford, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the statute underlying the attempted second degree murder charge. The court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it affirms convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery and discusses confession admissibility and sentencing. opinion →
State v. Breaux, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27D(1) only to report that the sentence fell within the statutory limits while addressing the legality of the sentence and firearm enhancements; it did not interpret or decide any issue about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Matthews, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 in identifying the offense and cites § 14:27(d)(l) among authorities supporting the sentence amendment, but it does not interpret or explain what the statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Coleman, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the statutes underlying the prosecution and charging instrument; the court's holding concerns the legality and modification of the sentence and firearm-enhancement statutes, not the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Ford, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the offense of conviction and the procedural history. The court analyzed the elements of forgery under § 14:72 and the sufficiency of the evidence, without construing or applying § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Leason, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only as part of the description of the charges and does not interpret the attempt statute or decide what it requires. The court's later discussion concerns the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and does not construe § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Wilkinson, the opinion identifies the statute as the provision under which defendant was convicted, but the court reverses for insufficient evidence and does not interpret, explain, or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Woljar, the statute appears only in a footnote reporting the defendant's argument. The court did not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27(C); its holding concerned the constitutionality of La. R.S. 14:89(A)(2). opinion →
State v. Marshall, the court mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only in describing the charges brought against defendant; it does not interpret or apply the statute, and the attempted aggravated rape charge was acquitted. opinion →
State v. Forde, the court merely cited La.R.S. 14:27 C. while affirming that the evidence supported the attempted-armed-robbery verdict; it did not interpret, explain, or otherwise decide the statute's meaning or requirements. opinion →
State v. Mosley, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only as part of the defendant's argument. Its holding concerns whether simple robbery was a responsive verdict to purse snatching and does not interpret or apply the attempted-crime statute. opinion →
State v. Anderson, the court mentioned La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the offense underlying its excessive-sentence review; it did not interpret or decide what the statute means, requires, or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Victores, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural description of the charges and conviction; the court does not interpret, explain, or decide anything about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Horn, the statute appears only in the procedural history as part of the statutes cited in the original attempted-murder charge. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide any issue concerning La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Kihnel, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only in the Reporter's Comment parenthetical as an analogy while deciding that Louisiana law does not recognize attempted conspiracy. It did not construe or apply § 14:27 itself. opinion →
State v. Scott, the statute is mentioned only to identify the charge in the procedural history; the court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27, and affirmed after finding no patent errors. opinion →
State v. Guirlando, the opinion mentions § 14:27 only in describing the charge and the jury's verdict; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute's requirements. opinion →
State v. Thibodeaux, the statute is mentioned only to identify the attempted-murder charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bell, section 14:27 is cited in passing alongside § 14:62 to support the statement that the sentence was within the trial judge’s discretion; the court did not construe the attempt statute or decide how its requirements applied. The actual ruling concerned parole-language authority and contempt procedure. opinion →
State v. Tzuanos, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Green, the court cited § 14:27 only while explaining that any error in admitting the gun was harmless; it did not interpret or decide what the attempt statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Wilson, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Scott, the court quoted § 14:27(D)(3) in a footnote to explain the sentencing range, but did not construe or analyze the provision; the decision concerned whether the defendant's sentence was excessive. opinion →
State v. Caillouet, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as part of the description of the original charge; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bienvenue, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the offense charged; the court decides sentencing issues under La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.1 and does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Broussard, the statute is mentioned only as the statute underlying the original attempted-murder charge in the procedural history; the court did not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lacy, the opinion merely identifies the statutes underlying defendant's conviction. Its sufficiency analysis addresses the essential elements of La.R.S. 14:95.1 and does not construe or apply La.R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Joe, the court cited La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the maximum penalties while reviewing whether the sentences were excessive; it did not construe or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Boyd, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the statute underlying the charged offense. The court did not interpret or apply the attempt statute; its rulings concerned sentencing enhancements under La.R.S. 14:95.2 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 893.1. opinion →
State v. Vital, the statute is cited only in the introductory description of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted. The court did not interpret La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 or decide how it applies; its discussion concerned the sufficiency of the evidence and excessiveness of the sentences. opinion →
State v. Champagne, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged. The court decides whether the defendant had to be present when an illegal sentence was corrected and whether he could withdraw his guilty plea; it does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Craddock, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the original charge. The court addressed the excessiveness of the sentences imposed after the plea bargain and did not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Deal, the court cited La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only as an indictment statute and as part of the sentencing citation; it did not construe or apply the statute's substantive requirements. opinion →
State v. Smith, the statute appears only in the procedural history to identify the offense of conviction; the court decides the constitutionality of the sentence and does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Littleberry, the statute appears only in the procedural history describing the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. The court decided the motion to suppress and sentencing issues, and did not interpret or apply the elements or requirements of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Kelson, the opinion cites La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statutory basis for the attempted-murder charges; it does not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Bradford, the court merely identified the statutes underlying the charged attempted offenses. Its holding concerned double jeopardy and vacated the attempted manslaughter conviction; it did not construe or decide what La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Price, the statute is mentioned only to identify the attempted-second-degree-murder charge in the case's procedural history. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 in deciding this appeal, which concerned the armed-robbery conviction and sentence. opinion →
State v. Quinn, section 14:27 appears only in the description of the charge in the procedural history. The court did not interpret or decide how the statute applies; its holding concerned hearsay and the insufficiency of the evidence. opinion →
State v. Brooks, the statute is mentioned only in identifying the offense of conviction in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Franklin, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as one of the provisions charged; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Walker, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty; it does not interpret or apply the statute's elements, requirements, or scope. opinion →
State v. Goldsby, the statute is cited only to identify the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty and the procedural history; the court decides that the sentence was internally inconsistent and remands for resentencing, without construing or applying § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Comeaux, the court merely identifies the statute as one of the provisions underlying the attempted-simple-burglary conviction; it does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Boyd, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the offense of conviction. The court's decision concerns whether the increased sentence on remand violated North Carolina v. Pearce and was justified by post-sentencing conduct; it does not construe or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Thornton, the statute appears only in the description of the offenses charged in the indictment; the court did not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State ex rel. Brisco v. Court of Appeal, First Circuit, the court merely identifies the statutes cited in the original charging bill; it does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Lambert, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only to calculate the possible sentencing range while reviewing whether the sentence was excessive; it did not interpret or otherwise decide what the statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Thorne, the statute appears only in the procedural history describing the charge; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Anderson, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense of attempted sexual battery in its sufficiency-of-the-evidence discussion. It did not interpret, explain, or decide how the attempt statute applies. opinion →
Spooner v. W. BATON ROUGE PARISH SCH. BD., the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the felony underlying the public officer's suspension and does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the attempted-felony statute itself. opinion →
State v. McGee, the statute appears only in the procedural history describing McGee's withdrawn guilty plea; the court's decision addressed error-patent review and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Grimes, the statute is mentioned only to identify the amended offense to which defendant pleaded guilty; the court decided the excessiveness of the sentences and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Royal, the statute appears only in the description of charges brought below; the court decided the aggravated burglary conviction and habitual-offender and sentencing issues, while the two rape counts were later dismissed. opinion →
State v. Dugas, the statute is mentioned only as part of a citation identifying the statutes involved in the prior Ourso case. The court does not construe La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 or decide how it applies in this case. opinion →
State v. Dugas, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only as part of its summary of the earlier Ourso decision; it did not construe the statute or decide how it applies in this case. opinion →
State v. Everett, section 14:27 is mentioned only in the procedural description of the original charge; the court did not interpret or apply the attempt statute and affirmed the conviction for aggravated battery. opinion →
State v. Dyson, the court mentions § 14:27(D)(3) only in a footnote correcting the trial judge's citation of authority and noting that its penalty is identical to the applicable penalty under § 40:979(A); it does not construe or apply § 14:27(D)(3) in deciding the appeal. opinion →
State v. Caillouet, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the statute allegedly violated by the attempted first degree murder charge; the court did not interpret or apply La.R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Clayton, the court mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 to identify the statute under which the guilty plea and fifty-year sentence arose, and in describing the statutory maximum; it does not construe or otherwise decide an issue about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the offense to which Johnson pleaded guilty; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Broussard, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the attempted first-degree murder charge in the procedural background. The court’s analysis and holding concern the sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated arson, and it does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. White, the court merely identified the statute as part of the charge and later mentioned it in an unraised patent-error discussion; it did not interpret § 14:27 or decide how its requirements applied. opinion →
State v. Boyd, the court merely reports the statutory basis of defendant's prior conviction. Its holding addresses whether the resentenced seven-year term violated Pearce and prior decisions concerning firearm-sentence enhancements; it does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davis, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the offenses charged; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 in deciding the appeal. opinion →
State v. Lozard, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged; the court reverses the conviction based on the insanity defense and does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Sloan, the court cites § 14:27 only to identify the offense of attempted armed robbery and to state the potential sentencing range; it does not construe, explain, or decide how the statute applies. opinion →
State v. Matthews, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged in the indictment; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Coleman, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only in describing the charges and later discusses the sentence for attempted first degree robbery; it does not interpret, define, or decide how the attempt statute applies. opinion →
State v. Williams, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only in describing the charges; it does not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Dozier, the statute appears only in the procedural description of the offense and conviction; the court did not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. West, section 14:27 is cited as the statutory basis for the attempted-rape conviction and sentence, but the court does not construe the statute or decide any issue about its meaning, requirements, coverage, or application. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying the attempted-armed-robbery charge; it does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Ashworth, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Leagea, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only in describing the indictment and the charged offenses. The court affirmed the convictions based on sufficiency of the evidence, principal liability, and inferred specific intent, without interpreting or applying the requirements of the attempt statute itself. opinion →
State v. Sherman, the court merely identifies the statutes underlying the attempted armed-robbery conviction. Its decision concerns whether the sentence was constitutionally excessive; it does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State in Interest of Handy, the court mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only in describing the offenses charged and adjudicated; it does not interpret or decide what the attempt statute means or requires. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Adams v. Butler, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27(D)(1) only in a note reciting the maximum sentence for attempted first degree murder as background for comparing the offenses and resolving the double-jeopardy remedy; it does not interpret or decide how § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. Griffin, section 14:27 is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the attempted first-degree-murder charge. The court's double-jeopardy analysis concerns whether the charged offenses were separate, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Newton, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction in the procedural history. Although the court vacates the attempted murder conviction on double-jeopardy grounds, it does not interpret or decide what La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Gray, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the offense underlying defendant's conviction; the court decides a sentencing/post-verdict-motion procedural issue and does not interpret or apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Lewis, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the attempted aggravated rape charge; the court addressed sentence excessiveness and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Poole, the court cites La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the maximum sentence for the predicate attempted burglary conviction while addressing the legality of the habitual-offender sentence. It does not interpret or independently decide anything about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. LaBrosse, the statute appears only in the procedural history as one of the statutes underlying the original charge. The court decided the admissibility of rebuttal testimony and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Owens, the court merely cites La.R.S. 14:27 while listing the offense for which Owens was convicted; it does not decide what the statute means, requires, or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Laird, the court cites § 14:27 only to identify the statutory maximum while reviewing whether the defendant's sentence was constitutionally excessive; it does not construe or decide an issue about the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Absent, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the amended attempted-theft charge; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Parker, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty; the court does not interpret or apply the meaning or requirements of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Seal, section 14:27 is mentioned only as part of the charging history; the court does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Noel, the court merely recites the penalty for an attempted crime against nature while reviewing the legality of the multiple-offender sentence; it does not interpret or decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. Mitchell, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying the attempted armed-robbery charge. The court does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Singleton, the statute appears only in the procedural description of the attempted-murder charges on which the defendant was acquitted; the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Morris, section 14:27 is mentioned only in the description of the conviction. The court's analysis and holding concern the elements and proof of aggravated escape under La.R.S. 14:110 C, not the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Harmon, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only as one possible statutory basis for the convictions and expressly says that the distinction is immaterial to the appellate issues; it does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Petty, section 14:27 is mentioned only in a footnote identifying a prior conviction alleged in the habitual-offender information. The court did not construe the statute or decide any issue about its requirements or application. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the charge in an indictment that the state elected not to prosecute; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, the statute is mentioned only in the indictment’s description of the attempted-murder charge; the court decides the confession-voluntariness issue and does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Robertson, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the conviction and is not construed or substantively applied by the court; the opinion addresses other appellate issues. opinion →
State, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only to identify the statute allegedly violated by the attempted first-degree-murder charge; the court does not interpret or apply § 14:27 and ultimately addresses the juvenile's adjudication for attempted second-degree murder. opinion →
State v. Belsha, the statute appears only in the bill of information's description of the attempted-burglary charge. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it dismissed the appeal based on the failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence under La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1. opinion →
State v. Vonhirshion, section 14:27 appears only in the description of the charges; the court did not construe or apply the statute and instead addressed sentencing under former La. C.Cr.P. art. 894.1. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the court merely identifies La.R.S. 14:27 as one of the statutes underlying the attempted-murder charge; it does not interpret, explain, or decide how § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. Bernard, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted armed robbery conviction. The court addresses resentencing and the restrictions required for armed robbery under La.R.S. 14:64; it does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Carouthers, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only while recounting Simmons's holding that an attempted simple burglary conviction did not qualify under La. R.S. 15:529.1 A(2)(b); Carouthers itself construes the habitual-offender statute, not La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hunter, the opinion cites La. R.S. 14:27 in describing the charged offense and cites § 14:27(D)(1) only to identify the maximum sentence; it does not interpret, define, or otherwise decide what the statute requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Bibb, the statute appears only in the description of the charge against defendant; the opinion does not interpret or apply § 14:27, and Count 3 was severed before trial. opinion →
State v. Griffin, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 as part of the procedural history describing the original charge. Its discussion of the attempted-manslaughter penalty occurs only in reviewing the excessiveness of the sentence, without construing or deciding the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Clark, the statute is cited only in the procedural description of the offenses charged and the responsive conviction. The court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. LeBlanc, section 14:27 appears only in the opinion's statement identifying the statutes underlying the conviction being set aside. The court's substantive discussion of principal liability and specific intent cites La.R.S. 14:24, not § 14:27, so the court did not decide anything about the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hillery, the court cites § 14:27 only to identify the statutes whose elements govern the attempted-armed-robbery charge. It does not construe the statute or explain its requirements; the decision instead concerns the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the post-verdict acquittal. opinion →
State v. Burton, section 14:27 is cited only to identify the attempted forcible rape conviction; the court decided the appeal on double jeopardy and sentencing issues without interpreting or applying the attempt statute's requirements. opinion →
State v. Brown, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only while describing the offense and sentence in a prior case; it did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the meaning or requirements of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bernard, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural facts to identify the offense charged. The court did not interpret or decide any issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; its holding concerned the State's right to appeal the sentence. opinion →
State v. Hawkins, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the original charge. The court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it addresses the constitutionality of the defendant's later sentence for aggravated battery. opinion →
State v. Holleman, the statute is cited only to identify the dismissed attempted simple kidnapping charges in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Rice, the statute appears only in the description of the charges in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hatter, section 14:27 appears only in the procedural history describing the defendant's original charge; the court did not construe or apply the statute. opinion →
State ex rel. Franklin, the statute appears only in the petition's charge description within the procedural facts; the court did not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Taylor, the statute is mentioned only in describing the charges. The court decided the mistrial issue concerning the prosecutor's reference to defendant as a criminal and did not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Polkey, the statute appears only in the procedural history as part of the original charge; the court did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hohn, the statute is cited only in the procedural background to identify the charge; the court does not interpret, construe, or decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. Dixon, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the charge; the court does not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Phillips, the court merely recited the statutory definition of attempted armed robbery while addressing the sufficiency of the evidence and jury-instruction issue in an armed-robbery conviction; it did not decide an issue about § 14:27 or apply it to an attempted-robbery charge. opinion →
State v. McKinney, the statute is mentioned only in the statement of the charges as the statute allegedly violated by the attempted-murder count. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 in deciding the appeal. opinion →
State v. Coleman, section 14:27 is cited only in the indictment description of the attempted aggravated crime against nature charge; the court does not interpret, apply, or decide any requirement of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. White, the opinion merely identifies attempted forcible rape under La. R.S. 14:27 as a charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, define, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Wilson, the statute appears only in the opinion's procedural history identifying the charge in the indictment; the State dismissed that charge, and the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davis, the court merely referenced § 14:27 to identify the maximum sentence while rejecting the defendant's excessive-sentence claim; it did not construe or decide the statute's meaning, requirements, coverage, or application. opinion →
State v. Every, section 14:27 appears only in the description of the indictment and the charged offense. The court did not construe the statute or decide any issue about its meaning, requirements, coverage, or application. opinion →
State v. Morgan, the opinion cites La.R.S. 14:27(64) only to identify the offense of conviction. Its holding concerns resentencing under the Habitual Offender law and the requirements of State v. Dorthey and State v. Walter Johnson, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Cyriak, the statute is mentioned only in the case's description of the offense of conviction; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Berry, the court quoted La. R.S. 14:27 while reviewing the trial court’s exclusion of attempted simple rape as a responsive verdict to aggravated rape, but its ruling rested on La. Code Crim. P. art. 814 C and the absence of evidence supporting the elements of simple rape. It did not decide the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Dixon, the court cites § 14:27 only in describing the charge and affirming the conviction; the holding addresses double jeopardy between attempted first-degree murder and aggravated burglary, not the meaning, elements, or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, the court merely recites the historical sentencing range and notes the 1995 amendment while reviewing the legality of the defendant's sentence; it does not construe or otherwise decide an issue about § 14:27(D)(1). opinion →
State v. Taylor, the court merely reported and deemed harmless an incorrect citation in the bill of information; it did not construe or decide the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Callahan, the opinion merely reports in a footnote that the State charged the attempt under La.R.S. 14:27 rather than La.R.S. 40:979. The court decided the excessiveness of the sentence and credit for time served, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Moore, the court did not decide the meaning or application of § 14:27(D)(3) in this case. It cited the attempt statute and prior authority to analogize its language to the conspiracy statute, then decided the defendant’s sentence under La. R.S. 14:26(C). opinion →
State v. Banks, the court mentioned § 14:27 only as a hypothetical contrast in its sentencing analysis; the defendant was convicted under § 14:89, and the court did not apply or construe § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Amato, section 14:27 is mentioned only as the attempt provision underlying the charge. The court's analysis and holding concern the elements and application of La. R.S. 14:138, not the meaning or requirements of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Schmidt, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural description of the charge; the court does not construe or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Shaw, the court cited La. R.S. 14:27 only to state the maximum sentence for attempted simple robbery while assessing whether the defendant's sentence was excessive; it did not interpret or otherwise decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Lagrange, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 alongside La.R.S. 14:44.1 while identifying the elements of attempted second degree kidnapping, but it did not interpret, analyze, or apply the attempt statute itself. opinion →
State v. Hongo, the court mentions § 14:27 only to identify the statutory definition that the trial court read in its jury instruction. The decision construes the required intent for attempted second degree murder under State v. Butler and addresses harmless error, without interpreting or deciding any requirement of § 14:27 itself. opinion →
State v. Egana, the court cites La. R.S. 14:27 in a string cite supporting the sentencing range, but it does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Palmer, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify an offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty in the procedural history. The opinion does not construe, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Hammond, the court cited La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 while identifying the elements of attempted armed robbery for a double-jeopardy comparison. It did not construe § 14:27 or decide an issue about its meaning, requirements, or application. opinion →
In Re Parker, the opinion only reports the hearing committee's characterization of respondent's conduct and its citation to La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; the Supreme Court does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Lee, the statute is mentioned in the procedural history to identify the charge and is reproduced in a footnote, but the court did not construe or decide what La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 means or requires; the decision addressed the sufficiency of the evidence and the multiple-offender adjudication. opinion →
State v. Raymond, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense in the procedural history. The court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. R.S. 14:27; it decided whether the aggravated-battery sentence was excessive. opinion →
State v. Reed, section 14:27 appears only in the opinion's description of the charge in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Bailey, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offenses underlying the defendant's convictions; the court does not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Smith, the court mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statutory basis for the conviction and, in a footnote, to note that amendments did not change pertinent penalty provisions. It does not interpret, apply, or decide any issue about the statute. opinion →
State v. Banks, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural account to identify the statutory basis for the defendant's attempted offenses. The court did not interpret, explain, or decide an issue about La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Fugler, the court merely identified the statutes underlying the charge in the procedural history. It did not construe La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 or decide what the statute means, requires, or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Taylor, the statute is mentioned only to identify the statutory basis of the charge in the procedural history; the court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Metoyer, section 14:27 appears only in the procedural history as part of the statutes underlying the original charge; the court did not interpret or apply it, deciding instead whether newly discovered evidence required a new trial under La. C. Cr. P. art. 851. opinion →
State v. McDowell, the statute appears only in the procedural history as part of the charging description; the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Abdullah, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty; the court does not construe or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Anderson, the court merely recited the statutory sentencing range while reviewing whether the defendant's sentence was excessive; it did not interpret § 14:27(D)(1) or decide a disputed issue about its meaning, requirements, coverage, or application. opinion →
State v. Silvie, the court merely identifies the statutory basis for the amended charge in describing the plea bargain; it does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Breland, the court cites § 14:27(D)(1) only to identify the statutory maximum for the attempted-murder sentence while reviewing whether the sentences were excessive; it does not interpret or decide any issue about the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hills, the statute is cited only to identify the offense of conviction in the procedural background; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Melder, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. It does not interpret, apply, or decide any issue concerning the statute. opinion →
State v. Sepulvado, the court cites La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statutory basis for the original charge and the reduced offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty. The appeal concerns the excessiveness of the sentence, and the court does not interpret or apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Etienne, the statute appears only in the opening charging description as one of the statutes underlying the attempted-simple-escape charge. The court decided the timeliness of the prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure, not the meaning, requirements, coverage, or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Smith, section 14:27 appears only in a string citation supporting the stated minimum sentence for attempted distribution; the court does not construe the statute or decide what it requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Guillard, the court merely recites the maximum penalty for attempted possession while summarizing the defendant's mistrial argument; it does not construe, apply, or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Castleberry, the court cited La.R.S. 14:27 only in passing to characterize the hitchhiker incident while deciding whether other-crimes evidence was admissible; it did not interpret, explain, or independently apply the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Fugler, the statutes are mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. R.S. 14:27; it decides the case on the Brady/mistrial issue. opinion →
State v. Hannon, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the charges; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Adams, the statute appears only in the charging allegation and in a footnote reproducing its definition; the court’s holding concerns repealed La.R.S. 15:171 and does not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Shine, the statute appears only in the opening procedural history to identify a dismissed charge; the court did not interpret or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Harris, the statute appears only in the procedural history as part of the statutes cited in the indictment; the court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Fox, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the statutes underlying the defendant's conviction. The court's holding concerns the habitual offender proceeding under La. R.S. 15:529.1 and does not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Nelson, the court merely recited the sentencing range while reviewing whether defendant's sentences were excessive; it did not construe or decide any issue about La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Haley, the court quoted La. R.S. 14:27 while reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempted drug-possession conviction, but it did not construe the statute or analyze its attempt elements; the ruling focused on proof of possession and intent to distribute. opinion →
State v. Smith, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense of conviction. The court's analysis and holding concern the admissibility of prior false allegations under La. C.E. art. 412, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Jones, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the statutory basis for charges in the indictment. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Davenport, the statute is cited only to identify the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty. The court's decision concerned the legality of the officers' frisk and seizure of the firearm, not the meaning or application of La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Cherry, section 14:27 appears only in the procedural description of the charge. The court does not interpret the statute or decide any issue about attempt liability; its analysis concerns the aggravated-battery conviction and sentencing. opinion →
State v. Glover, section 14:27 appears only in the description of the original attempted-murder charge, which was later dismissed; the court did not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Stevens, the court merely identifies the criminal charge of attempted second degree murder and cites La. R.S. 14:27; it does not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Dubroc, the court cited La. R.S. 14:27 only in a sentencing footnote to identify the maximum penalty for attempted manslaughter; it did not interpret or otherwise decide what the statute means or requires. opinion →
State v. Brooks, the court recited the general rule in La. R.S. 14:27(C) while evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to support the attempted-possession conviction; it did not construe or independently decide the meaning or application of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. McNeil, the court quoted § 14:27(A)'s definition of attempt as part of the general sufficiency-of-the-evidence framework, but it did not construe the statute or decide a disputed issue about its meaning or application. Washington's reversal on the relevant counts rested on the lack of evidence linking him to the offenses. opinion →
State v. Ballay, the statute is mentioned only to identify one of the defendant's prior convictions in the habitual-offender proceedings. The court did not construe, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Wright, the statute appears only in the procedural history as part of the original charge; the court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27 in deciding the appeal. opinion →
State v. Everett, the court recited the statutory definition of attempt as background, but it did not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27(A); it resolved the sufficiency challenge based on the victims' belief that the defendant was armed. opinion →
State v. Young, the opinion cites La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statute underlying defendant's attempted-simple-robbery conviction. The court does not interpret, explain, or apply the statute; its ruling concerns the habitual-offender proceeding. opinion →
State v. Dank, the court cites La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the statutory basis for defendant's sentence while reviewing his excessive-sentence claim; it does not interpret, explain, or decide how § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State v. Brock, the statute is cited only to identify the statute allegedly violated by the attempted-simple-kidnapping charge; the court does not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Mims, the opinion merely recites the text of § 14:27(A) in its statement of applicable law; it does not decide what the statute means, requires, or how it applies to the defendants. opinion →
State v. Haynes, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the charge. The court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27; its decision concerned the admissibility of an affidavit under La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(3). opinion →
State v. Guy, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court's holding concerns the habitual-offender adjudication and sentence, not the meaning or application of La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Boyd, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Schmidt, the court cited § 14:27(D)(1) only to identify the statutory maximum while reviewing whether the sentence was excessive; it did not interpret or independently decide how the statute applies. opinion →
State v. Jones, the court mentions § 14:27 only in stating the offense of conviction. It does not construe the statute or decide what it requires; the sufficiency analysis addresses identity and the sentencing discussion addresses habitual-offender law. opinion →
State v. McCurtis, the statute appears only in the defendant's argument as a comparison to the habitual-offender sentencing provision. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Bamburg, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense of conviction in the procedural history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Self, the court merely identifies La. R.S. 14:27 as part of the statutory basis for the attempted-forcible-rape charge in describing the plea bargain. It does not interpret, explain, or apply the attempt statute; the holding concerns double jeopardy. opinion →
State v. Callegari, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the statute cited in the original attempted-murder charge. The court ultimately reviewed and affirmed an aggravated-battery conviction and did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Hawthorne, the statute is cited only to identify the attempted armed robbery conviction and in the sentencing history. The court does not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27; its holdings concern multiple-offender sentencing, sentence restrictions, and consecutive sentences. opinion →
State v. Martin, the statute appears only in the procedural history identifying the statutes underlying the attempted-murder charges. The court did not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27; the defendant was acquitted of those charges, and the appellate decision addressed the cocaine-possession conviction. opinion →
State v. Guss, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the indictment's charges. The appellate court does not construe or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; its discussion of attempted-murder elements is incidental to the sufficiency-of-the-evidence ruling. opinion →
State v. Moody, the opinion merely identifies the statute as part of the charge in the procedural history; it does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the statute is cited as part of the indictment and the opinion later upholds the sufficiency of the evidence for attempted second degree murder, but the court does not interpret, state the requirements of, or otherwise decide a legal issue about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Shaw, the opinion merely identifies La. R.S. 14:27 as one of the statutes underlying the defendant's attempted-murder conviction. The court does not interpret, explain, or decide how § 14:27 applies; its actual rulings concern voir dire, impeachment evidence, and the sentencing delay under La. C.Cr.P. art. 873. opinion →
State v. Algere, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as part of the citation for the attempted second degree murder charge; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Manasco, the statute is cited only in recounting the state's sentencing-exposure argument; the court did not construe or independently decide what § 14:27 means or requires. opinion →
State v. Jones, the court cites La. R.S. 14:27 only in passing as part of a statement about the sentencing exposure for the originally charged offenses; it does not interpret or apply the statute's requirements or meaning. opinion →
State v. Robichaux, the court cited La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense underlying the defendant's sentence and state the sentencing range; it did not interpret, define, or otherwise decide how the statute applies. opinion →
State v. Lindsey, the court merely cites La. R.S. 14:27 D(l) to state the applicable sentencing range while reviewing the sentence for excessiveness; it does not construe or otherwise decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Wallace, the statute is mentioned only to identify an attempted second degree murder conviction listed in the multiple-offender bill. The court did not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it relied on the manslaughter conviction for the habitual-offender finding. opinion →
State v. Robertson, the court cited § 14:27 to identify the attempted-armed-robbery convictions and reproduced an excerpt of its sentencing provision, but the decision addressed only whether the sentences were constitutionally excessive and did not construe or apply § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Brown, the statute is cited only in the procedural history to identify the offenses charged; the court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Mathews, section 14:27 is mentioned only in the procedural history as the statute underlying the attempted-murder charge; the court does not construe or apply its meaning or requirements. opinion →
State v. Campbell, the statute is cited only to identify the offense underlying the guilty pleas; the court did not interpret or decide anything about the meaning, elements, requirements, or application of La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. West, section 14:27 appears only in the procedural history as part of the statute cited for the original charge. The court did not interpret, explain, or apply the attempt statute; it reviewed the defendant's sentence for aggravated battery and firearm enhancement. opinion →
State v. Thompson, the statute is cited only while recounting defense counsel's argument about a possible responsive verdict and sentence; the court did not construe or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Mitchell, the majority did not construe or apply § 14:27; it affirmed responsive verdicts for manslaughter and aggravated battery. The quoted language appears in the dissent's recitation of the elements of the charged attempted offense. opinion →
State v. Currie, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the charging statute for attempted second degree murder. The court's decision addresses the insanity defense and does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Harris, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as the charging basis for an attempted first degree robbery count. The court did not construe, explain, or apply La. R.S. 14:27; the appeal concerned ineffective assistance of counsel. opinion →
State v. Smith, the concurrence cites § 14:27(C) for a general proposition, but the majority did not construe or apply the statute. The discussion is hypothetical and incidental to the reversal and remand. opinion →
State v. Canada, the statute is mentioned only to identify an attempted-carjacking charge and calculate the defendant's pre-plea sentencing exposure. The court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27; its ruling concerned the plea agreement and appellate review of the sentence. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Dj, the statute is mentioned to identify the offense charged and to state the adult penalty in a comparison supporting the juvenile jury-trial analysis. The court did not interpret, define, or decide how La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 applies. opinion →
State ex rel. D.J., the statute is cited only to identify the attempted second degree murder charge; the court does not interpret, construe, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Jason, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only in describing the offenses charged and the responsive verdicts; the court does not interpret or apply the statute's requirements and resolves the appeal on other grounds. opinion →
State v. Jackson, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history as part of the charges in the bill of information. The court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27; its holding concerned sentencing under the habitual offender law. opinion →
State v. Moore, the statute is cited only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; its later discussion of the maximum sentence for attempted manslaughter is part of the excessive-sentence analysis and does not cite or construe this statute. opinion →
State v. Pierre, section 14:27 appears only in the procedural history as part of the original indictment. The court decides the jury-waiver issue and does not interpret or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Williams, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in the procedural history. The court decided sufficiency of the evidence and other issues without construing or applying La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Coleman, the court mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only in correcting the commitment form's description of the conviction; it does not interpret or apply the attempt statute's meaning or requirements. opinion →
State v. Kemp, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only in describing the attempted-murder charge in the procedural history. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about the statute. opinion →
State v. Sanborn, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the original indictment. The charges were later amended to armed robbery, and the appellate court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the court merely identifies the statute as the provision allegedly violated and later confirms the charging was proper; it does not interpret, explain, or decide any issue about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Carter, the statute appears only in the procedural history to identify the charge against Carter. The court does not interpret, apply, or otherwise decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Deutor, the opinion merely identifies the statute as the provision allegedly violated in the charging history; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Williams, La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 appears only in the charging/procedural history as the statute allegedly violated for attempted first degree murder. The court did not interpret, explain, or apply the statute. opinion →
State v. Sylvia, La. R.S. 14:27(A) appears only in a footnote identifying the specific-intent nature of attempted possession and explaining why the court need not make a specific-intent finding. The court did not construe, interpret, or decide how § 14:27(A) applies. opinion →
State v. Harrison, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only in recounting the charges and guilty plea. The court decided that the sentence was ambiguous and indeterminate, without interpreting or applying the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Brown, the statute is mentioned only in the procedural history to identify the charges; the court does not interpret, explain, or apply La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State ex rel. C.P., the statute is mentioned only in the opening procedural description of the charges. The court does not interpret or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it decides the appeal on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. opinion →
State v. Brown, the opinion mentions La. R.S. 14:27 only to identify the attempted-murder charge in the procedural history. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide any issue concerning this statute. opinion →
State v. Bolden, the court merely identified the statute underlying the attempted-crime conviction and recited its text while applying the general Jackson sufficiency standard; it did not construe or independently decide what La. R.S. 14:27 requires. opinion →
State v. Houston, section 14:27 is mentioned only to identify the statute underlying the defendant's conviction in the procedural background; the court does not interpret or apply its requirements. opinion →
State of Louisiana v. Albert C. Girtley, Sr., the court cited La. R.S. 14:27(D)(3) only to identify the maximum penalty for attempted manslaughter while analyzing the guilty-plea advisement requirement under La. Code Crim. P. art. 556.1. It did not interpret or decide what § 14:27 requires or how it applies. opinion →
State v. Girtley, the court cited § 14:27(D)(3) only to identify the maximum penalty for attempted manslaughter. Its actual holding concerned whether La. Code Crim. P. art. 556.1 requires advising a defendant of aggregate consecutive-sentence exposure, so it did not decide a question about § 14:27. opinion →
State v. Berniard, the opinion mentions La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27 only in the procedural history to identify the statute underlying the attempted-forcible-rape charge. The court decided the sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated rape under § 14:42, not the meaning or application of § 14:27. opinion →
State of Louisiana v. Gobert, the opinion mentions La.R.S. 14:27 only to identify the offense to which Gobert pleaded guilty in the procedural history. The court decides a double-jeopardy waiver issue arising from the plea agreement, but it does not interpret, explain, or apply the elements or requirements of the attempt statute. opinion →
State v. Gobert, the statute is mentioned only to identify the attempted manslaughter charge in the procedural history. The court decides the double-jeopardy and waiver issues without interpreting or applying the elements or requirements of La. R.S. 14:27. opinion →
State v. Cheavious, the statute is mentioned only to identify the offense charged in count two. The court did not interpret or apply La. R.S. 14:27; it vacated the conviction because the evidence did not establish aggravated battery and that verdict was not supported by the evidence. opinion →
State v. Johnson, the statute appears only in the court's recitation of the defendant's predicate felony convictions for habitual-offender sentencing. The court did not interpret, apply, or decide anything about La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. opinion →
State of Louisiana v. Skipper, the court recited § 14:27's penalty provision in the course of reviewing whether the defendant's sentence was excessive. It did not construe the statute or decide a statute-specific issue; the holding concerned the trial judge's sentencing discretion and compliance with La. Code Crim. P. art. 894.1. opinion →
State of Louisiana v. Sias, the statute appears only in the procedural facts describing the charge. The court did not interpret, explain, or apply La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27; it decided issues concerning jury selection, defendant's presence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. opinion →
…and 592 more.

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under La. Stat. Ann. § 14:27. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace