DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Huckabay, 809 So. 2d 1093.

122 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmie Dixon, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (citation omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Wilbert D. Jefferson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Garrett J. Ward La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Darrell Clark La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Damond Scott La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Harrison J. Bethley La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Terrence Keith Wilson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
  • State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), , 1111.
  • State v. Brazell 245 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), , 1111 ).
  • State v. Williams 240 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), , 1108.
  • State v. Patterson 241 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), , 1106, citing *443 , 1148 (La.
  • State v. George 204 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    4 Cir. 2/6/02); (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. 307 at 99 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Wells 203 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Scott 197 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , , 1108: An accused is entitled to confront and cross | ^examine the witnesses against him.
  • State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), ), as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is con: stitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Davis 176 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Miner 163 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (quoting State v. Ragas, 98-0011 (La.App.
  • State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Alexis 157 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Ramirez 154 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), , this Court identified the standard for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact c
  • State v. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Cameron 152 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. *198 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Lewis 147 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: *303 In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Allen 141 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (internal citations omitted); State v. Taylor, 13-0265, p. 12 (La.App.
  • State v. Quezada 141 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (internal citations omitted); State v. Taylor, 13-0265, p. 12 (La.App.
  • State v. Weathersby 140 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, |inviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Scott 136 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. German 133 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (quoting State v. Ragas, 98-0011, pp. 13-14 (La.App.
  • State v. Scott 131 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , , this Court discussed a defendant’s right to confront his accusers: An accused is entitled to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him.
  • State v. Taylor 130 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Allen 129 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), writ denied, 02-0703 (La.11/1/02), State v. Francis, 95-194, pp. 12-14 (La.App.
  • State v. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , writ denied, 02-0703 (La.11/1/02), ; State v. Francis, 95-194, pp. 12-14 (La.App.
  • State v. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , : In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the Mr. Vargas-Aleerreea guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Dussett 126 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Peters 123 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , this court once again explained the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fa
  • State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , as follows: In evaluating whether evidence is constitutionally sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , quoting State v. Ragas, 98-0011, pp. 13-14 (La.App.