Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State v. Lewis 96 So. 3d 1211 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, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Pettus 96 So. 3d 584 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 ex rel. of C.R. 95 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Jackson v. Virginia, swpra; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), ; State v. Weary, 2003-3067, p. 18 (La.4/24/06), .
State v. Abdul 94 So. 3d 801 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. Paul 90 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Massey 91 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“ ‘As a general matter, when the key issue is the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, rather than whether the crime was committed, the [s]tate is required to negate any reasonable probability of misidentification.’ ” Id., (quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Cartagena 90 So. 3d 1170 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. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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. Williams 88 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Jones 88 So. 3d 1120 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. McCord 85 So. 3d 210 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. Bannister 88 So. 3d 628 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. Reed 88 So. 3d 601 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. Delanueville 90 So. 3d 15 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. Johnson 91 So. 3d 365 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 of Louisiana v. Gary Wayne Woods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Martin 83 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Robinson 81 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under 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 (La.6/29/01), (quoting State v, Captville, ).
State v. Richards 78 So. 3d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 |3of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Williams 80 So. 3d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Hernandez 82 So. 3d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Jones 78 So. 3d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Adams 78 So. 3d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Terrance 80 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Roderick S. Bradley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6/29/01), cert, denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Elie 74 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
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. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 ex rel. C.D. 69 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
The Jackson v. Virginia standard of review 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 ex rel. C.N. 69 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
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), , , (La.2/27/84).
State v. Alvarez 71 So. 3d 1079 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State Ex Rel. Cn 69 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , , (La.2/27/84).
State of Louisiana v. Latonya Michell Young La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Demond Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Adams 68 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 10 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Flores 66 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 4/29/08), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Alex P. Papillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Papillion 63 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In considéring the issue of proof of identify, our Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Wiley 68 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:438 and State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Nicholas Courville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State ex rel. D.D. 65 So. 3d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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 of Louisiana v. Kent Dale Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Simon 62 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 1 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Sylvester 63 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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. Sherri Ann Sepulvado La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jason Allen Lomax La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
11/7/03), this court stated as follows: The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01); stated: As 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.