Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jared J. Tidwell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Wilford B. Vangure AKA Wilfred Vangure AKA Wilfred B. Vangure La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.” When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, Louisiana Revised Statute § 15:438 mandates, “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); cert.
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Tidwell 139 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
a light most favorable to the state, does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.” When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, Louisiana Revised Statute § 15:438 mandates, “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); , cert.
State v. Ross 144 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), ; State v. Weary, 2003-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Ernest R. Billiot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In addition, “[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, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Percy 137 So. 3d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Hughes, 05-0992 (La.11/29/06), , citing State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), , and State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.16/29/01),6 .
State ex rel. K.D. 140 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence was Insufficient 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 in the Interest of E. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State ex rel. E.T. 136 So. 3d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State ex rel. A.W. 137 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence 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. Marlbrough 138 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Sparkman 136 So. 3d 98 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. Francois 134 So. 3d 42 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. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 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, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Hager 131 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Scott 131 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Sterling 131 So. 3d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Martin 131 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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 of Louisiana v. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Carter 128 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Richey 128 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Green 128 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Alfaro 128 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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.
State v. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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 denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Weldon Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Thompson 123 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Lang 128 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Barnes 126 So. 3d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), (citing United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th Cir.1991)).
State v. Dussett 126 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hughes, 2005-0992, pp. 5-6 (La.11/29/06), (citing State v. Weary, 2003-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ).
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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), , quoting La.
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Identity of Mr. Santos-Castro as the Perpetrator “[W]hen 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. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), , quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Eric John Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Anderson 116 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Martin 121 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert .
State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
15:438; State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Henry 119 So. 3d 713 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Cerda-Anima 119 So. 3d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 74 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Florant 119 So. 3d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. E.J.M. 119 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by