Cited by

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

535 citing documents.

State v. Duncan 15 So. 3d 1171 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)[,] ().
State v. GRH 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. G. R. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Mosley 13 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
15:438 and State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Marilyn Roman Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State of Louisiana v. John Q. Davis 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 v. Gilmore 11 So. 3d 575 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) ().
State v. Lively 11 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Foreman 10 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , (1979), when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an 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. Fields 10 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Carmen 3 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Mitchell 7 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
(quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Babineaux 8 So. 3d 621 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Sartain 2 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Brewer 2 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Norris A. Palms La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Nelson 3 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Major 1 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Clement 1 So. 3d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Lawson 1 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Damon Lee Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Weary, 03-3067 (La.4/24/06), State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Gaines 998 So. 2d 227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2065 , 167 L.Ed.2d 789 (2007); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.06/29/01), , cert.
State v. Adams 993 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Watson 993 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Nix 987 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Under this standard, the appellate court “must deter *864 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, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Collier 987 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Df 991 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert, denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 122 S.Ct.
State ex rel. D.F. 991 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Hall 986 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Smith 984 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
682 , 166 L.Ed.2d 531 ]; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), [ cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Dwayne Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
denied, __U.S.___, 127 S.Ct.; State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), [cert.
State v. Bedou 985 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Frith 985 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
15:438; State v. Neal, 00-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Archie Louis Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. Carter 981 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Clinton B. Schneider, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
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. Schneider 981 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. White 982 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Dixon 974 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2065 , 167 L.Ed.2d 789 (2007); State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.06/29/01), , cert.
State v. Taylor 975 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Smith 974 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Kearney Alsandor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674[,] p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. ALSANDOR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX[,] p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. James Oliver McKeehan, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), cert.
State v. McKeehan 969 So. 2d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
15:438; see State v. Neal, 2000-0674 p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , cert.
State v. Martin 970 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
05-0459, p. 13, 925 So.2d at 575 , quoting State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), .
State v. Harris 968 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Id., citing, State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), , cert.