Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pigford, 922 So. 2d 517.

734 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 3 96-1048 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Rodney L. Johnson, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State v. Johnson 140 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 821, does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Leone 140 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.
State v. Price 140 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 48,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
State v. Parker 141 So. 3d 839 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/09), , writ denied, 90-0310 (La.11/06/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Brooks 139 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Chisolm 139 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), .
State v. Adams 139 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Ernest R. Billiot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State of Louisiana v. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State v. Mack 144 So. 3d 983 La. 2014
6 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Bowman 139 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), .
State v. Percy 137 So. 3d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Broome 136 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Moore, 44,429 (La.App.2d Cir.8/26/09), , writ not cons., 2009-2166 (La.4/9/10), ; State v. Strother, 43,363 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/08), , writ denied, 2008-2289 (La.5/15/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Wilson Locke, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06)
State v. Blueford 137 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Scott 136 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 205-0477, p. 7 (La.2/22/06), ; see also Clements, supra (guilty knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances and proved by direct or circumstantial evidence).
State v. Banks 134 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Davis 134 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Gay 136 So. 3d 919 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Sidney John Handy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96– 1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State of Louisiana v. Jamaal Cole Diggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Isiah Demon Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State v. Diggs 154 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Handy 154 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Lively 153 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; State v. Lubrano, 563 So.2d |fl847 (La.1990)).
State v. Jackson 132 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
State v. Jones 132 So. 3d 505 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/06/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Corey W. Oliphant La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Oliphant 127 So. 3d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Jackson standard does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), .
State v. Jones 128 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.
State v. Moore 128 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.
State v. Cook 127 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Robinson 127 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/06/09), .
State v. Moss 127 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
State v. Sellers 128 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. William King, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
State v. King 124 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Banks 128 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
[T]he pertinent question on review [is] not whether the appellate court found that defendant’s hypothesis of innocence offered a reasonable explanation for the evidence at trial but whether jurors acted reasonably in rejecting it as a basis for acquittal.” State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 5 (La.2/22/06), (per cu-riam).
State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State of Louisiana v. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).