Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dotson, 896 So. 2d 310.

26 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Billy Dean Cotten La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Cotten 241 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Joenell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
3 Cir. 3/2/05), (quoting State v. Chesson, 03–606, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Rubin 211 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), , (quoting State v. Chesson, 03-606, p. 5 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 3/2/05), this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a ra
State v. Farry 206 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 3/2/05), , this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the essential' el
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 3/2/05), (quoting State v. Chesson, 03-606, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), , (quoting State v. Chesson, 03-606, p. 5 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Dominique Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Jackson 179 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Jaymes Larmar Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Harris 157 So. 3d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), , the court explained: [W]hen the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Willie James Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 3/2/05), this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: 3 In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecut
State v. Robertson 135 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 3/2/05), , this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: l4In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the essential e
State of Louisiana v. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Corey W. Oliphant La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Oliphant 127 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Kendrick M. Cox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 3/2/05), this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: In considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a rational
State v. Cox 124 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 3/2/05), , this court has explained the insufficiency analysis as follows: lain considering questions of sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and consider whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the essential e
State v. Vice 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Billy Ray Vice La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Oliphant 980 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Larry Surratt and Cynthia Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 3/2/05), the defendant was convicted of first degree robbery.
State v. Surratt 932 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
3 Cir. 3/2/05) , , the defendant was convicted of first degree robbery.
State v. Hunter 907 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
3d Cir.3/2/05), ; see also State v. Hebert, 29,062 (La.App.