Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Marcantel, 815 So. 2d 50.

190 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Anthony N. Green Sr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
4/3/02), (citation omitted).
State of Louisiana Versus Shane Smith La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
4/3/02), (affirming the defendant’s felon in possession of a firearm conviction on the basis of witness testimony without any physical evidence); State v. Page, 08-531 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Sherneskie Bell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
4/3/02), 23-KA-85 9 Bailey, 04–85 at 5, 875 So.2d at 955.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.H.. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Andre D. Coleman La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
4/ 3/ 02), ("[ w] here there is no physical evidence to link a defendant to the crime charged, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for a factual conclusion required for a verdict of guilty."); State v. Farrar, 2013- 1635 ( La.
State of Louisiana v. Jorge Lopez Benavides La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Lisa W. Rabalais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State of Louisiana Versus Wayne Norman La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
4/3/02); Bailey, supra).
State of Louisiana Versus Charles R. Lane La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Corn La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Johnson 266 So. 3d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
4/3/02), , 55 ): The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could conclude that the State proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Barnett 262 So. 3d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Parker 259 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/3/02), , 55 (citations omitted).
State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/3/02), , 55 : The standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold a conviction is whether or not, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could conclude that the State proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Carter 257 So. 3d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Aaron Orlando Richards -Aka- Aaron Richards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Richards 247 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Alridge 249 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
State v. Cretian 238 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Hawkins 219 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Jones 214 So. 3d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/3/02), (“When issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, we first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”) ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Joenell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Rubin 211 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Farry 206 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Wells 203 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/3/02), ; State v. Gibson, 15-0682 (La.App.
State v. Serigne 193 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), (
State of Louisiana v. Adam Batiste, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Batiste 189 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Paul 185 So. 3d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Mercantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), ; Bailey, supra.
State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Cole 182 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), ; See also, State v. Page, 08-531 (La.App.
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), ().
State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Berard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. White 174 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Dock 167 So. 3d 1097 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), ().
State v. Pollard 165 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/23/14), (citing State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), ).
State v. Beene 164 So. 3d 299 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Manning 164 So. 3d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), ; State v. Carter, supra.
State of Louisiana v. David Caleb Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Fontenot 160 So. 3d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Miner 163 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
We address Mr. Miner’s second assignment of error first, in accordance with the well-settled jurisprudence that “[w]hen issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Simonson 163 So. 3d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/23/14), (citing State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), ).
State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Marcantel, 001629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02); ; State v. Shaw, 07-1427, p. 15 (La.App.
State v. Rapp 161 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
We address this issue first; “[w]hen issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, [the reviewing court is to] first determine the sufficiency *108 of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“When issues are raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)