Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State v. Lampkin 119 So. 3d 158 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. Preston 118 So. 3d 1129 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. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 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. Alexander 119 So. 3d 120 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. Alexander 118 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Alton Ray La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Ray 157 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1859 , 182 L.Ed.2d 658 (2012), the supreme court noted that: 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, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 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. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 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. Ohlsson 115 So. 3d 54 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. Ross 115 So. 3d 616 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 *621 every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Austin 113 So. 3d 306 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. Buhcannon 112 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Using the Jackson 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 |inelements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Vedol 113 So. 3d 1119 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. Gross 110 So. 3d 1173 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. Bourgeois 113 So. 3d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Neal, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Brown 109 So. 3d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Accordingly, we “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. Hayes 108 So. 3d 360 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 v. Ellis 109 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Applying the Jackson 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, p. 9 (Laj6/29/01), ().
State v. Earls 106 So. 3d 1149 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Kenner 106 So. 3d 1084 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , 657-58 cert.
State v. Maldonado 106 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Madrid 104 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Harris 105 So. 3d 914 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State ex rel. T.M. 105 So. 3d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
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. Jones 101 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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. Burke 103 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Weary, 2003-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Petty 103 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Gatewood 103 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
| iS15:438 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. Shannon 101 So. 3d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Weary, 03-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), , citing State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Richoux 101 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Christmas 101 So. 3d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Cammatte 101 So. 3d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Bradley 101 So. 3d 986 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Tatum 103 So. 3d 550 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Dorsey, supra; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Johnson 103 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
1859 , 182 L.Ed.2d 658 , 80 USLW 3563 (2012); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
However, positive identification by only one witness is sufficient to support a conviction.” State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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. Ennis 97 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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. Tanner 109 So. 3d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State ex rel. A.D. 95 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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.6/29/0l), , citing State v. Captville, *1180
State v. Scott 97 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), *1051 , cert.
State v. Robertson 98 So. 3d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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 v. Lewis 95 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01); .