Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 848 So. 2d 557.

68 citing documents.

State v. Washington 86 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Dorsey, 10-0216 (La.9/7/11), ; State v. Davis, 02-1043 (La.6/27/03), .
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
State v. Davis, 02-1043, p. 3 (La.6/27/03)
State v. Johnson 22 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Davis, 02-1043 p. 3 (La.6/27/03), .
State v. Frith 985 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), , 558 (emphasis in original).
State of Louisiana v. Paul D. Massey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
a is rationality and that ‘irrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld, and the actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent 5 necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.’ ” State v. Davis, 2002-1043 p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), (emphasis in original).
State v. Scott 948 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
14:62.3; State v. Davis , XXXX-XXXX (La.6/27/03), .
State v. Ordodi 946 So. 2d 654 La. 2006
"However, we are mindful that the touchstone of Jackson v. Virginia is rationality and that `irrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld, and the actual fact finder's discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.'" State v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), , 558 (emphasis in original).
State of Louisiana v. Warren Todd Dossman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
6/27/03), State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 8, n.8 (La.
State v. Dossman 940 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Davis, 02-1043, p. 4 (La.6/27/03), ; State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 8, n. 8 (La.5/16/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Paul Junius Felix La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
6/27/03), State v. Hills, 99-1750, p.8 n. 8 (La.
State v. Felix 918 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Harris, 01-2730, p. 41 (La.1/19/05), , 1261 citing, State v. Davis, 02-1043, p. 4 (La.6/27/03), ; State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 8 n. 8 (La.5/16/00), , 522 n. 8.
State v. Hopkins 897 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/27/03), ; State v. Ponsell, 33,543 (La.App.
State v. Updite 877 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
In State v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/27/03), , the supreme court reiterated: [T]he task of an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is not to second-guess the credibility choices of the trier of fact "beyond * * * sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review."
State v. Walker 870 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
The supreme court recently summarized the role of credibility in appellate review for sufficiency in State v. Davis, 2002-1043 (La.6/27/03), : [T]he task of an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is not to second-guess the credibility choices of the trier of fact “beyond * * * sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.” State ex rel.
State v. Lee 868 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
In the recent case of State v. Davis , XXXX-XXXX (La.6/27/03), , the supreme court reiterated: [T]he task of an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is not to second-guess the credibility choices of the trier of fact "beyond * * * sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review."
State v. JTS 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Davis, 02-1043, p. 2 (La.6/27/03), .
State of Louisiana v. J.T.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. J.T.S. 865 So. 2d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Therefore, our only question on appeal is “whether the jury acted rationally in finding [KS.’s] testimony credible.” State v. Davis, 02-1043, p. 2 (La.6/27/03), .