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. Major, 888 So. 2d 798.

85 citing documents.

  • State v. Favors 28 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    12/1/04), (Citation omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Alfonzo Jermaine Johnlouis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State v. Johnlouis 22 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    “[S]ince knowledge is a state of mind, it need not be proven as fact, but rather may be inferred from the circumstances.” State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodney Messick La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Woodard 9 So. 3d 112 La. 2009
    Cf. State v. Major, 03-3522, p. 8 (La.12/1/04), (“The evidence at trial established that defendant had exercised dominion and control over the cocaine hidden underneath the dashboard of the car by virtue of his dominion and control over the vehicle as the driver and professed renter”)- Knightshead could reasonably decide not to focus jurors’ attention on that
  • State v. Collins 998 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State v. Decay 989 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    12/1/04), ; State v. Lewis, supra .
  • State of Louisiana v. Ezekiel Maurice McGinnis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State v. McGinnis 981 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Major, 03-3522, p. 8 (La.12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State v. Frith 985 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    State v. Major, 03-3522, p. 7 (La.12/1/04), ; .
  • State of Louisiana v. Archie Louis Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State v. Carter 981 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), (citation omitted).
  • State v. Griffin 984 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    State v. Major, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), .
  • State v. Senegal 972 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/1/04), , the supreme court stated, "Possession of narcotic drugs can be established by actual physical possession or by constructive possession.
  • State of Louisiana v. Desmond Joseph Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    12/1/04), the supreme court stated, “Possession of narcotic drugs can be established by actual physical possession or by constructive possession.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremy D. Lee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    12/1/04), (wherein the supreme court explained that possession can be established by either actual physical possession or by constructive possession.
  • State v. Lee 957 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    See State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), (wherein the supreme court explained that possession can be established by either actual physical possession or by constructive possession.
  • State v. Rose 955 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    In State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard of review for claims raising sufficiency of the evidence in circumstantial cases as follows: |2When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme C
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronnie Kurt Hongo, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Hongo 944 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 7-8 (La.12/1/04), .
  • Major v. Painter 945 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), .
  • State v. Miller 945 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    [9] State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), ; LSA-R.S.
  • State of Louisiana v. Sean A. Strange La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    12/1/04), he argues that “mere presence in a vehicle carrying narcotics is insufficient to prove knowing possession unless it is shown that the defendant has dominion and control within his reach.” To begin, we note that Louisiana courts have consistently held that the prosecution need not demonstrate that the defend
  • State v. Strange 940 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Additionally, citing State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), , he argues that *823 "mere presence in a vehicle carrying narcotics is insufficient to prove knowing possession unless it is shown that the defendant has dominion and control within his reach."
  • State v. Pigford 922 So. 2d 517 La. 2006
    See State v. Major, 03-3522 at 8-9 (La.12/1/04), .
  • State v. Lewis 916 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), ; State v. Lathers, 03-941, p. 6 (La.
  • State v. Jones 902 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), ; State v. Lathers, 03-941, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Brown 902 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), ; State v. Lathers, 03-941, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Perry 900 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/01/04), ; State v. White, 37,261 (La.App.2d Cir.06/25/03), .
  • State v. Proctor 901 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/04), ; State v. Lathers, 03-941, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. John R. Turner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), .
  • State v. Hopkins 897 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    at 2789 ; State v. Major, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/1/04), .
  • State v. Turner 896 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. Major, 03-3522 (La.12/1/04), .