Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Leger, 936 So. 2d 108.

375 citing documents.

State v. Farry 207 So. 3d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
7/10/06), ; see also State v. Small, 13-1334, p. 13 (La.App.
State v. Wilson 208 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy 218 So. 3d 535 La. 2016
7/10/06), State v. Blank, 04-0204 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
iewing a claim of insufficient evidence: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05–11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Mitchell A. Flemming, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Flemming 194 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Leger, 05-11, pp. 12-13 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 6/13/12), (citing State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 92 (La.7/10/06), ); see also Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1311 .
State v. Hutchinson 190 So. 3d 1264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
607 , 172 L.Ed.2d 471 (2008); State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Amos 192 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
rucial question in determining whether an aggravated kidnapping has occurred is “whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with his demands.” see State v. Leger, 2005-0011, p. 96 (La.7/10/06), .
State v. Matthews 191 So. 3d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Leonard Ingram La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Leger, 2005-0011, p. 98 (La.7/10/06), (), ("[T]he question and the issue to be focused upon is whether the defendant sought to obtain something of value, be it sex or money or loss of simple human dignity, by playing upon the victim’s fear and hope of eventual release in order to gain compliance with hi
State v. Ingram 181 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 44 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
1/16/15), stating: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is ―whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.‖ State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
.3d 1061, 1067 , writ denied, 14-755 (La.1/16/15), , stating: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of ea'ch 'o'f the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Mitchell 182 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Cole, 131 So.3d at 936 (citing State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
of the evidence to support a conviction: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05–11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
viewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof *1106 beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Moultrie 182 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
viewing a claim of insufficient evidence: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is ―whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.‖ State v. Leger, 05–11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Paulson 177 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 44 (La.7/10/06), ; see also State v. Small, 13-1334, p. 13 (La.App.
State v. Fairman 173 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Ferguson 181 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 2005-0011 (La.7/10/06), -48 , cert.
State v. Leger 168 So. 3d 382 La. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), .
State of Louisiana v. Jamarlon Pierre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
iewing a claim of insufficient evidence: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is ―whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.‖ State v. Leger, 05–11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), cert.
State v. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
ollowing regarding the standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence: The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Pierre 170 So. 3d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The standard of review utilized in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Jenkins 172 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 44 (La.7/10/06), .
State v. Bradstreet 170 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 10 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Brian Lowell Frazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Frazier 157 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” See State v. Leger, 05-11 (La.7/10/06), , cert, denied, 549 U.S. 1221 , 127 S.Ct.
State v. Aguillard 158 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 92 (La.7/10/06), (citations omitted).
State v. Hill 167 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“Under the plain view doctrine, if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object that has an incriminating nature that is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.” Morales, supra (citing State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Chaddrick D. Mayes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Mayes 154 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The standard of review applicable to Defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State v. Victor 167 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
State v. Leger, 05-11 (La.7/10/06); -48 , cert.
State ex rel. J.D. 154 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/10/13), 573 (citing State v. Leger, 2005-0011, p. 44 (La.7/10/06), ).
State of Louisiana v. Troy Edward Delozier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Delozier 151 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
rated the appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence claims, stating: *175 The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Fields 151 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 10 (La.7/10/06), ; State v. Jefferson, 13-0703 through 0707, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
*983 STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged.” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La.7/10/06), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014