Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Shapiro, 431 So. 2d 372.

503 citing documents.

State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Johnson 99 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Furthermore, “when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must consist of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.” State v. McMillian, supra, p. 6 , 65 So.3d at 804 ().
State v. Tatum 103 So. 3d 550 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Moore, 46,-252 (La.App.2d Cir.5/18/11), , writ denied, 11-1260 (La.12/2/11), .
State v. Kirk 98 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
in which the Supreme Court reversed a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence.
State ex rel. J.W. 95 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
rev’d on rehearing (La.1983).
State ex rel. J.W. 95 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
rev’d on rehearing (La.1983).
State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Dauzart 89 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jefferson 91 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Van Sales, 38,138 (La.App.2d Cir.3/3/04), , writ denied, 04-1305 (La.4/22/05), .
State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Likewise, the Court found that the circumstantial evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s murder conviction.
State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. LeBlanc 76 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Sims 75 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Payton 68 So. 3d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. McMillian 65 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Brown 56 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Monroe 52 So. 3d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Fernandez 50 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
However, “Mypotheses of innocence are merely methods for the trier of fact to determine the existence of a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence or lack of evidence.” (on reh’g) (Lemmon, J., concurring).
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
rule as to circumstantial evidence: “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” By reading this evidentiary statute alongside the constitutional requirements of Jackson, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized a (on rehearing).
State v. Mitchell 46 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Van Sales, 38,138 (La.App.2d Cir.03/03/04), , writ denied, 2004-1305 (La.04/22/05), .
State of Louisiana v. Eric L. Hunter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Hunter 41 So. 3d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Lawrence Kivin Nixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Greene 26 So. 3d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, “[hjypotheses of innocence are merely methods for the trier of fact to determine the existence of a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence or lack of evidence.” (on reh’g) (Lemmon, J., concurring).
State v. Thurman 18 So. 3d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Jake M. Thurman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Dowell 17 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. QUAC TRAN 18 So. 3d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, “[h]ypotheses of innocence are merely methods for the trier of fact to determine the existence of a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence or lack of evidence.” (on reh’g) (Lemmon, J., concurring).
State v. Holland 13 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Riley 10 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. USSIN 10 So. 3d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Brown 7 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. Vincent 7 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Sparkman 5 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
State v. Boyd 999 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Conner 996 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Castell 991 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Agee 990 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Jackson 987 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Shaw 987 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State Ex Rel. Jn 984 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Oliphant 980 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Forbs 983 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Simmons 983 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. London 973 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Williams, 05-59, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Lopez 971 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007