Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State v. Rodgers 202 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Young 203 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Toliver 205 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6/29/01), ; State v. Carter, 14-0742 (La.App.
State ex rel. T.B. 200 So. 3d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
6/29/01), (citation omitted).
State v. Williams 199 So. 3d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Falgout 198 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
15:438're-quires that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ; see also, supra, Brown; Veal.
State v. Scott 197 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Under this standard, the appellate' court “must déter-mine 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, [20]00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Hickman 194 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
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, [20]00-0674 (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Thomas 192 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
*302 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Debbie E. Adams AKA Debbie Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Clements 194 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), (citing cases).
State v. Everette 192 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light Inmost 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, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Sandifer 195 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
15:438 requires that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 6/29/01) , -60 (relegated Brady claim to post-conviction where record on appeal was | ^insufficient); see also Johnson, 09-0259, p. 10, 22 So.3d at 212 ; State v. Bradford, 02-1452, p. 15 (La.App.
State v. Warrick 186 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Bonilla 186 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
“[W]hen the key issue is the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, rather than vvhether the crime was committed, the State is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.” State v. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), , quoting State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Cole 182 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Kyle D. Hodde AKA - Kyle Daniel Hodde La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
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. Barbain 179 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
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. Preston 178 So. 3d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Reeder 189 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Carter 171 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Campbell 171 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
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. Wilson 171 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Pollard 165 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 12 (La.6/29/01), (citations omitted); see La.
State v. Martin 163 So. 3d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
11/29/06), , (citing State v. Weary, 2003-3067 (La.4/24/06), , and State v. Neal, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01), ).
State v. Carter 167 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Bruce 169 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Baham 169 So. 3d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Thompson 167 So. 3d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Crawford 166 So. 3d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Wall 209 So. 3d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Griffin 167 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Bowens 156 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01) *774 ().
State v. Alexis 157 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[T]he 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, p. 9 (La.6/29/01) (); see also State v. Magee, 2012-1025, p. 18 (La.App.
State v. Hughes 165 So. 3d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Williams 164 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Castillo 167 So. 3d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Cameron 152 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
.State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Spencer 151 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:438 requires that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Johnson 151 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 12 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Robinson 150 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Small 147 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:438 requires that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Tony Jackson, AKA Leoanrdo Jackson, AKA Leon Jackson, AKA Leonardo Marice Jackson, AKA Leonard … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Jackson 146 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It is well settled that “[a]s a general matter, when the key issue is the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the state is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.” State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.