Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Peoples, 383 So. 2d 1006.

45 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Charles R. Lane La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
Distinguished State v. Bailey 180 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
The defendant argues that the prosecution was required to establish by competent evidence the exact value of the stolen item
State v. Vargas 138 So. 3d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
Distinguished State v. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
and asserts that Peoples is directly on point with the present case.
State v. Schaffer 767 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); regardless of how the error is brought to the attention of the reviewing court.
State v. Green 691 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Shortly after Jackson, our supreme court, recognizing the Art. 920 alternative, summarized the developments in the law regarding raising and resolving the sufficiency issue: (La.
State v. Dugas 691 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
evidence of the original price of the stolen items and the replacement costs of the similar new equipment does not prove value of the items.
State ex rel. B.J. 617 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State, in Interest of Bj 617 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
State v. Otis 586 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Gross 542 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Like defendant herein, his co-defendant Bennie Louis Valery, and State in the Interest of Nelson, (La.App.
State v. Brown 537 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
to support the proposition that the State's evidence of value was insufficient to warrant a conviction.
Distinguished State v. Valery 532 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
[2] and State in the Interest of Nelson, (La.App.
State v. Mallett 526 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Johnson 513 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
However, ruled that sufficiency errors must be reviewed on appeal "regardless of how the error is brought to the attention of the Court."
State v. Lambert 475 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
in which the court stated that although the state offered evidence of the original purchase price of the stolen items, which were from two to seven years old at the time of the crime, and the replacement cost of new equipment, it did not offer evidence tending to prove the value of the items at the time of
State v. Hines 465 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Breaux 467 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Russell 448 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Art. 920 states that we may not, holds that in order to consider the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must assign such as error with the trial court or assert it by virtue of a motion for a new trial.
State v. Guillory 447 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
State v. Camp 446 So. 2d 1207 La. 1984
State v. Harris 444 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State ex rel. Nelson 442 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Gonday 442 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Allen 440 So. 2d 1330 La. 1983
[4] this court recognized its authority to review the legal sufficiency of evidence based on an assignment of error filed with this court, even though the defendant failed to raise the issue in the trial court.
State v. Thomas 427 So. 2d 428 La. 1983
State v. Williams 420 So. 2d 1116 La. 1982
However, this court held that...it would review a claim that the state's case was insufficient to support a conviction under a "no evidence" standard.
State v. Hoffer 420 So. 2d 1090 La. 1982
Burks, supra; Entertainment Specialists, Inc., supra; (La.
State v. Raymo 419 So. 2d 858 La. 1982
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); (La.
State v. White 404 So. 2d 1202 La. 1981
State v. Harvill 403 So. 2d 706 La. 1981
State v. Goods 403 So. 2d 1205 La. 1981
State v. Edwards 400 So. 2d 1370 La. 1981
State v. Garrison 400 So. 2d 874 La. 1981
However, this Court held that even in the absence of a motion for a new trial (or a proper motion for a directed verdict) it would review a claim that the state's case was insufficient to support a conviction under a "no evidence" standard.
State v. Prestridge 399 So. 2d 564 La. 1981
State v. Haarala 398 So. 2d 1093 La. 1981
State v. Morris 397 So. 2d 1237 La. 1981
Since our original hearing, however, in which we held that "it would be patently unfair and a denial of due process to deny a defendant the right to obtain review by this court of a conviction where it is claimed that the state failed to present any evidence of the crime charged or an essential element thereof simply because he did not file a m
State v. Fontana 396 So. 2d 1251 La. 1981
State v. Temple 394 So. 2d 259 La. 1981
State Ex Rel. Womack v. Blackburn 393 So. 2d 1216 La. 1981
However, this Court recently held that it would be patently unfair and a denial of *1219 a defendant's due process rights to refuse to review a complaint that the state failed to present any evidence of the crime charged or an essential element thereof simply because he failed to file a motion for a new trial or fil
State v. Gibson 391 So. 2d 421 La. 1980
State v. Moak 387 So. 2d 1108 La. 1980
1977), contra, , No. 66091 on the docket of this court, decided this date.
State v. Daranda 388 So. 2d 759 La. 1980
However, we held that, whether or not a defendant raises a claim of no evidence in a motion for a new trial, upon formal assignment of error, we will review whether the defendant's claim of no evidence has merit.
State v. Entertainment Specialists, Inc. 386 So. 2d 653 La. 1980
State v. Boutte 384 So. 2d 773 La. 1980
However, we recently held that it would be patently unfair and a denial of a defendant's due process rights to refuse to review a complaint that the state failed to present any evidence of the crime charged or an essential element thereof simply because he failed to file a motion for a new trial or filed such a moti