Statute defining “public officer” and “public employee,” for purposes of offense of public intimidation, is sufficiently broad to include police officers.  State v. Love, App. 3 Cir.1992, 602 So.2d 1014.

Private nonprofit corporation, which was established by corporate charter, in compliance with state law, but which was not created by special act of Legislature or by resolution of city-parish council, was not a state or parish “agency,” even though it was designated as a community action agency by resolution of city-parish council and it received funds from several federal agencies, state agencies and local government to operate 30 antipoverty programs, and thus its employees were not “public employees” within purview of R.S. 14:134 governing malfeasance in office by public employees with result that its employees could not be indicted under such statute.  State v. Smith, Sup.1978, 357 So.2d 505.

Public officer

Parish police jurors were “state officers” and “public officers” within meaning of Const.1921, Art. 19, §1 (see, now, Const. Art. 10, §30), providing that all “officers” before entering on the duties of their offices shall take specified oath or affirmation, and they had a mandatory duty to conform to standards of conduct required by their oath of office, and, if they did not conform to such standards of conduct, they were guilty of malfeasance in office.  State v. Melerine, Sup.1959, 236 La. 881, 109 So.2d 454.