DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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 v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 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. Kenny 116 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Marcelin 116 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), ; State v. Broadway, 96-2659, p. 24 (La.10/19/99), .
  • State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Clements 112 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. McNair 107 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , this Court discussed an insufficient evidence argument: 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 defendan
  • State v. Thomas 106 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    This court set forth the applicable standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in State v. Huckaby, 2000-1082, p. 32, , 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. Sipp 104 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.
  • State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Burke 103 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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 h7fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond *662 a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Johnson 99 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Kirk 98 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Armstead 98 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. | ,,2/6/02), ; citing State v. Harris, 99-3147, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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.
  • Distinguished State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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. LeBlanc 76 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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. Payton 68 So. 3d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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. A. D. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), [, writ denied, 02-703 (La.
  • State v. A.D.L. 64 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , [, writ denied, 02-703 (La.11/1/02), ]; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Wells 64 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.
  • State v. Green 62 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Fortune 54 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Ferguson 54 So. 3d 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) ; State v. Hailey, 2002-1738 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. B. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    4 Cir 2/6/02), State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Foster 44 So. 3d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), , writ denied, 02-0703 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d *743 564 ; State v. Francis, 95-194, pp. 12-14 (La.App.
  • State v. Black 41 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Lawrence Kivin Nixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Robinson 33 So. 3d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Stukes 19 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Duncan 15 So. 3d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Gilmore 11 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Foreman 10 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Riley 10 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.
  • State v. Fields 10 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Thompson 10 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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. Vincent 7 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), (quoting State v. Harris, 99-3147, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Sparkman 5 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
  • State v. Sartain 2 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 Cir. 2/6/02) , ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Nelson 3 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 Cm 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    4 Cir. 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.
  • State v. Jackson 987 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    4 Cir 2/6/02), ; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App.