Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Neal, 796 So. 2d 649.

535 citing documents.

State v. Dudley 984 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674, pp. 12-13 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Ross 965 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
See State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , U.S. cert.
State v. Harrell 965 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State of Louisiana v. Charles Hatch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Hatch 964 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Richards 956 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX[,] p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Huey Lee Richards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674[,] p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy D. Lee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Lee 957 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Wilson 956 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Singleton 953 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State of Louisiana v. Justin Charles Singleton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Semien 948 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Semien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal , XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Batiste 947 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State of Louisiana v. Ronnie Kurt Hongo, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Rideau 947 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
925 So.2d at 575 , quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Hongo 944 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Hughes 943 So. 2d 1047 La. 2006
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Gauthier 941 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
925 So.2d at 575 , quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Leger 936 So. 2d 108 La. 2006
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Smith 934 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Larry Surratt and Cynthia Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Surratt 932 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Gordon 928 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[5] State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Roberson 929 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.06/29/01), .
State v. Walker 930 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Williams 924 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State of Louisiana v. Larry James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Davis 924 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Perry 920 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.06/29/01), ; State v. Hopkins, 39,258 (La.App.2d Cir.03/02/05), .
State v. Williams 925 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Hooker 921 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
5th Cir.3/29/05), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Joseph 921 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Melvin B. Morris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Wilhite 917 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Morris 918 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Jefferson 922 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v, Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Alexander La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
6/29/01), stated: [P]ositive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.
State v. Alexander 916 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , stated: [P]ositive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.
State v. Lewis 916 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
See also: State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Callier 909 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Stewart 909 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Brown 907 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Clark 909 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
[7] State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Brown 902 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.