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. Shapiro, 431 So. 2d 372.

503 citing documents.

  • State v. Freeman 506 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    In other cases [], and under the same comparison, a defendant’s hypothesis may be found not remote or unreasonable, but just as reasonable and consistent with the totality of the evidence as the prosecution’s hypothesis.
  • State v. Baptiste 506 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brooks 505 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Tullier 504 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Its sufficiency does not depend upon “whether it produces the same conviction as the positive testimony of an eyewitness.”
  • State v. Nolan 503 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Montgomery 499 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Cann 494 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Clark 492 So. 2d 862 La. 1986
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); and that absent proof of this crime his conviction for first degree murder cannot stand.
  • State v. Guirlando 491 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    simply means that such evidence, although admissible to support a "guilty mind", are not alone sufficient to convict.
  • State v. Smith 490 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In his brief, for the proposition that, when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, the circumstantial evidence rule (LSA-R.S.
  • State v. McGuffey 486 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Godfrey 476 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. McFadden 476 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rosiere 476 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Lilly 468 So. 2d 1154 La. 1985
  • State v. Benton 464 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rogers 464 So. 2d 955 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Since this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, and have found that under this analysis there is sufficient evidence in the record to find the defendant guilty of theft.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Shapiro 455 So. 2d 1382 La. 1984
  • State v. Bailey 457 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Wilson 452 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Coleman 450 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    on rehearing; rehearing denied, June 3, 1983.
  • State v. Slaughter 451 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    The Court, has held that this statutorily-mandated standard must be applied independently and in addition to the Jackson standard used to review the sufficiency of evidence in purely direct evidence cases.
  • State v. Matthews 450 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Harrison 451 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Green 449 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Swift 449 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Love 448 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Maggio 449 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), on rehearing.
  • State v. Lewis 449 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence presented must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
  • State v. Hayes 446 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), but we do not reach that issue because our examination of the record leaves us with a serious doubt as to whether the fact finder applied the appropriate legal standard in assessing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence against Hayes.
  • State v. Faulkner 447 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Captville 448 So. 2d 676 La. 1984
    simply mean that such evidence, although admissible to support a "guilty mind", are not alone sufficient to convict.
  • State v. Camp 446 So. 2d 1207 La. 1984
  • State v. Nash 446 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Lawson 446 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    has held that this statutorily-mandated standard must be applied independently of and in addition to the Jackson standard used to review the sufficiency of evidence in purely *497 direct evidence cases.
  • State v. Sly 443 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Grigsby 445 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Barber 445 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Henry 439 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Robinson 442 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • State v. Hall 441 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Robinson 441 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    See, at 1103-1104 ; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Howard 441 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Foy 439 So. 2d 433 La. 1983
    (on rehearing) (La.1983).
  • State v. Allen 440 So. 2d 1330 La. 1983
  • State v. Brockington 437 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
  • State v. Bowman 434 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The serious issue here is whether the State excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when it relied upon circumstantial evidence