La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18 (2026)

Justification; general provisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§18.  Justification; general provisions

The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.  This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:

(1)  When the offender's conduct is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of public office; or

(2)  When the offender's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure; or

(3)  When for any reason the offender's conduct is authorized by law; or

(4)  When the offender's conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by their parents, tutors or teachers; or

(5)  When the crime consists of a failure to perform an affirmative duty and the failure to perform is caused by physical impossibility; or

(6)  When any crime, except murder, is committed through the compulsion of threats by another of death or great bodily harm, and the offender reasonably believes the person making the threats is present and would immediately carry out the threats if the crime were not committed; or

(7)  When the offender's conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 212 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: State v. Black, 41 So. 3d 1243 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Black, 41 So. 3d 1243 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “R.S. 14:18 provides that "[t]he fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.”
People v. Landry, 385 P.3d 327 (Cal. 2016). “" (La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(6) available from La.”
State v. Glass, 455 So. 2d 659 (La. 1984). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:18 which provides in part: The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to any crime based on that conduct.”
State v. Cheatwood, 458 So. 2d 907 (La. 1984). · cites it 3× “R.S. 14:18. Physical inability to perform an affirmative duty is statutorily recognized as a defense which negates criminal responsibility.”
State v. Wischer, 885 So. 2d 602 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “I concur in the result rendered by this court, but respectfully disagree with the majority opinion's interpretation of LSA R.S. 14:18 and 14:19, determining that a criminal defendant in a non-homicide case should bear the burden of proving self-defense or justification.”
State v. Moore, 640 So. 2d 561 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “LSA-R.S. 14:18 and 14:19 The first paragraph of this proposed instruction is the first paragraph of R.”
State v. Amato, 698 So. 2d 972 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “R.S. 14:18 was not established in this case.”
State v. Miller, 746 So. 2d 118 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “R.S. 14:18(4). Accordingly, we reversed his conviction, vacated and set aside his sentence, and ordered an acquittal be entered into the record.”
State v. Blache, 480 So. 2d 304 (La. 1985). · cites it 2× “[6] R.S. 14:18. Justification; general provisions The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.”
State v. De Gruy, 215 So. 3d 723 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 14:18. In addition, the use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent…”
State v. Brenner, 486 So. 2d 101 (La. 1986). · cites it 2× “However, it is significant that the standards and regulations governing facilities for the infirm are much more precise and definite than the standard of care required for children. See LSA-R.S. 40:2001 through 40:2113.”
State v. Farhood, 844 So. 2d 217 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “We have reviewed the general charge given to the jury and find it to be a correct statement of the law on justification and self-defense as set forth in LSA-R.S.14:18 through R.S. 14:19. [1] The requested jury charge was contained in the general charge; therefore, the trial…”
Show all 212 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(1) — 2 cases
State v. Amato, 698 So. 2d 972 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “R.S. 14:18 was not established in this case.”
State v. Wischer, 885 So. 2d 602 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “I concur in the result rendered by this court, but respectfully disagree with the majority opinion's interpretation of LSA R.S. 14:18 and 14:19, determining that a criminal defendant in a non-homicide case should bear the burden of proving self-defense or justification.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(2) — 2 cases
State v. Bryan, 398 So. 2d 1019 (La. 1981).
State v. Siggers, 490 So. 2d 716 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(3) — 4 cases
State v. Everett, 530 So. 2d 615 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Washington, 533 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Piazza, 655 So. 2d 1357 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Washington, 533 So. 2d 392 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(4) — 17 cases
State v. Miller, 746 So. 2d 118 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 14:18(4). Accordingly, we reversed his conviction, vacated and set aside his sentence, and ordered an acquittal be entered into the record.”
State v. Brenner, 486 So. 2d 101 (La. 1986). “However, it is significant that the standards and regulations governing facilities for the infirm are much more precise and definite than the standard of care required for children. See LSA-R.S. 40:2001 through 40:2113.”
Griffith v. Latiolais, 32 So. 3d 380 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Humphrey, 412 So. 2d 507 (La. 1982).
Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 32 N.E.3d 861 (Mass. 2015).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(5) — 3 cases
State v. Cheatwood, 458 So. 2d 907 (La. 1984). “R.S. 14:18. Physical inability to perform an affirmative duty is statutorily recognized as a defense which negates criminal responsibility.”
State v. Banks, 128 So. 3d 534 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Long, 654 So. 2d 694 (La. 1995).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(6) — 26 cases
People v. Landry, 385 P.3d 327 (Cal. 2016). “" (La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(6) available from La.”
State v. Glass, 455 So. 2d 659 (La. 1984). “R.S. 14:18 which provides in part: The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to any crime based on that conduct.”
State v. Chism, 436 So. 2d 464 (La. 1983).
Tully v. State, 730 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
State v. Dunn, 831 So. 2d 862 (La. 2002).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(7) — 21 cases
State v. Black, 41 So. 3d 1243 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 14:18 provides that "[t]he fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.”
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Perkins, 149 So. 3d 206 (La. 2014).
State v. Sanchell, 103 So. 3d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Clement, 368 So. 2d 1037 (La. 1979).
State v. Thompson, 366 So. 2d 1291 (La. 1978).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:18(H)(2) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 109 So. 3d 994 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.