Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. MacOn, 957 So. 2d 1280.

179 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Tyler N. Derochowski La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
6/1/07), –86, the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact cou
State of Louisiana v. Gladue Joseph Istre La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
6/01/07), (other citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. James Derek Person, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State v. Macon, 06–481, pp. 7–8 (La.6/1/07), – 86.
State of Louisiana Versus Maurice T. Leach AKA "marlo" La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
6/1/07), -86; State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Strong La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Trae Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
See State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07)
State of Louisiana v. Demetrice Dontrell Welch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
6/1/07), -86, the supreme court reiterated the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims on appeal, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the p
State of Louisiana v. Jarrett Andrews La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
6/1/07), -86 Second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S.
State v. Andrews 265 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
6/1/07), , 1285-86 Second degree murder, a violation of La.R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Reokenski Vodise Thomas AKA Reokenski Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Thomas 258 So. 3d 708 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Charles C. Keene La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Mahogany 225 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
6/1/07), (holding that “[a] reviewing court may impinge on the fact-finding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the.
State v. Hawkins 219 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel McCoy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. McCoy 219 So. 3d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Ernest Ray Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
6/1/07), -86, the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact coul
State v. Williams 216 So. 3d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
6/1/07), -86 , the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
State v. Jones 214 So. 3d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
6/1/07), (“A reviewing court may impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review.”).
State of Louisiana v. Tedrick Jewan Richardson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
6/1/07), -86, the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential e
State of Louisiana v. Kerry Bertrand La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 4/13/16), -31, this court discussed the standard to be applied in cases where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged and the case is based on circumstantial evidence: The supreme court set forth the standard of review for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), -86, where it held: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
State v. Richardson 210 So. 3d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6/1/07), -86 , the supreme court reiterated that standard, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
State v. Bertrand 209 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6/1/07), -86 , where it held: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of *879 the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Castro 206 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State ex rel. J.J. 196 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Macon, 2006-0481 (La.6/1/07), .
State v. Clements 194 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07), .
State v. Hutchinson 190 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The State can .meet its burden of proof by proving that the defendant was aware that he was driving a stolen vehicle, “as we can presume that there can be no legitimate permission given to drive a stolen vehicle.” State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Mark Wayne Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
6/1/07), -86, where it held: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reason
State v. Thibodeaux 190 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The supreme court set forth the standard of review for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), -86 , where it held: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State of Louisiana v. Dwane Edward Fox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
6/1/07), -86, the supreme court reiterated the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims on appeal, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any ration
State v. Fox 184 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
In State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), -86 , the supreme court reiterated the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims on appeal, stating: The standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
State of Louisiana v. D'Andre Jamal Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07); .
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07); .
State of Louisiana v. Quincy McKinnies, Jr. 171 So. 3d 861 La. 2014
Also, in State v. Macon, 2006-0481, p. 7 (La.6/1/07); , we found "the trial court's sua sponte decision to convert the defendant’s motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal into a motion for new trial, then grant a new trial based on a finding that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the crime with which defendant was charged, constitut
State v. Wells 156 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In addition, we as “[a] reviewing court may impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review.” State v. Macon, 06-481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Jared J. Tidwell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Tidwell 139 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The determination of the weight of the evidence is question of fact which rests solely with the trier of fact, and the trier of fact “may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witnesses.” State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), .
State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Macon, 06-0481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07), -1286 .
State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Similarly, “[a] reviewing court may impinge on the factfinding function of the jury only to the extent necessary to assure the Jackson standard of review.” State v. Macon, 06-0481, p. 8 (La.6/1/07), -1286 .
State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
State v. Macon, 06-0481 (La.6/1/07); -86 ; State v. Rowan, 97-21 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Anton Chehardy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Chehardy 157 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), -86 .
State v. Carmouche 117 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Macon, 06-481, pp. 7-8 (La.6/1/07), -86 .
State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Brent Authorlee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Authorlee 111 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Macon, 06-481 (La.6/1/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Cedric Charles Edwards AKA Cederic C. Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Macon, 06-481 (La.6/1/07), (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.