Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State v. Sepulvado 59 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 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 v. Peters 60 So. 3d 672 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 v. Wright 61 So. 3d 88 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. Lewis 61 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Eric Joseph Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Smith 58 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State ex rel. C.J. 60 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Bazley 60 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Malone 56 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
15:438 “works with the Jackson constitutional sufficiency test to evaluate whether all evidence, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury.” State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.9/21/01), .
State of Louisiana v. David G. Sarpy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Sarpy 52 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Summers 52 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Bruce 54 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:438; State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. James E. Ramsdell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Ramsdell 47 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 00-674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State Ex Rel. Km 49 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , (La.
State ex rel. K.M. 49 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
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 ex rel. S.O. 49 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ; State v. Owens, 30,903, pp. 3-4 (La.App.
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
This Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence in State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. White 44 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Goldman 41 So. 3d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Hughes, 05-0992 (La.11/29/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Lewis 43 So. 3d 973 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01); , cert.
State v. Mickel 41 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Vallier 34 So. 3d 1168 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Carey Vallier, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State of Louisiana v. Moses Buchanan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Buchanan 36 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In State v. Neal, 00-674, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Melanie S. Hanner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Hanner 35 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Robinson 33 So. 3d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Barthelemy 32 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 11 (La.9/21/01) .
State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art., 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, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Knight 34 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Draughn, supra (quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State Ex Rel. Cb 28 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), (citing State v. Captville, 1982-2206 (La.2/27/84), ).
State ex rel. C.B. 28 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
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 (La.6/29/01), (citing State v. Captville, 1982-2206 (La.2/27/84), ).
State of Louisiana v. Carl Anthony Gobert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Gobert 24 So. 3d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
682 , 166 L.Ed.2d 531 (2006) ]; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), [, cert.
State v. Collins 30 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Brown 26 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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 |nthat all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01), (
State v. Jones 28 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Scott 26 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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 of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State in the Interest of T.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State ex rel. T.W. 21 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), ; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Thompson 22 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Johnson 22 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Stukes 19 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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) ().