DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Raymo, 419 So. 2d 858.

203 citing documents.

  • State v. Francois 134 So. 3d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Nevertheless, pursuant to this Court’s error patent review, we have reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence relative to Defendant’s and find no error.
  • State v. Williams 131 So. 3d 33 La. 2013
    (finding that “[b]ecause the state’s case was devoid of evidence of an essential element of the charged offense, ...
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy L. Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Bartie 104 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State in the Interest of C.D. 93 So. 3d 1272 La. 2012
    We may nevertheless exercise our supervisory authority to consider this claim because the failure of the state’s case on an essential element of the offense charged, in the present case, delivery of the heroin to Mary Charles by defendant, remains subject 110to review “regardless of how the error is brought to the attention of the reviewing court.” see State v. Celestine, 95-1393, p. 3 (La.1/26/96), (in narcotics cases, distribution is “defined as the ‘delivery’ or transfer of possession and con
  • State v. Fisher 87 So. 3d 189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    This court’s wherein the supreme court set aside the defendant’s forgery | ^conviction because there was no evidence that the.
  • State v. Mosley 16 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
    the Supreme Court held that "[b]ecause the state's case was devoid of evidence of an essential element of the charged offense ...
  • State v. Mosley 16 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    the Supreme Court held that “[b]ecause the state’s case was devoid of evidence of an essential element of the charged offense ...
  • State v. Dunbar 978 So. 2d 899 La. 2008
  • State v. Lemon 923 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    see also State v. Bowers, 01-120 (La.App.
  • State v. Turner 904 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Weaver 873 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    as "error patent on the face of the record."
  • State v. Vincent 806 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Bowers 792 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Jackson 767 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Schaffer 767 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    4 Cir.1985), this court stated, "Although not specifically assigned as error, "
  • State v. Raymond 718 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Armant 719 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Windham 712 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    State v. *1059 Raymo, State v. Balser, 96-443 (La.App.
  • State v. Green 691 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Balser 694 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Johnese 674 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    ( , 1375 n. 4 (La.1989); ).
  • State v. Mouton 672 So. 2d 192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Upon review of the 185 page transcript of the jury trial, we conclude there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Flores 669 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Ross 654 So. 2d 1311 La. 1995
    rather, it incorporates an objective standard"); ("Louisiana ...
  • State v. Riley 637 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Davis 634 So. 2d 1168 La. 1994
  • State v. Abbott 634 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Neisler 633 So. 2d 1224 La. 1994
  • State v. Riley 623 So. 2d 1289 La. 1993
  • State v. Johnson 623 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In his prior appeal, (La.
  • State v. Dabney 594 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Otis 586 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Krueutzer 583 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Benjamin 573 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    Upon review of the 185 page transcript of the jury trial, we conclude there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Desdunes 576 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Bartley 564 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Barrilleaux 555 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Weiland 540 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) appellant believes that the evidence supporting the verdict was not legally sufficient.
  • State v. Cade 539 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Defendant does not point to any specific evidentiary deficiency but rather requests that we examine the record independently to determine whether the evidence is sufficient
  • State v. Daniel 536 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Conley 531 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Ortiz 520 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Brown 517 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    5th Cir.1987), where sufficiency of evidence was raised only as an error on appeal, which held that where evidence of an essential element of the crime is missing the conviction and sentence must be vacated, “regardless of how the error was brought to the attention of the reviewing court.” Accordingly, we are constrained to review the record on this issue.
  • 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. Berthelot 513 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    at 859-860 (La., 1992) the Supreme Court discussed the element of "intent to defraud": An `intent to defraud' is an essential element of forgery under either definition.
  • State v. Scott 511 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    However, whenever a case is “devoid of evidence of an essential element of the charged offense [the] conviction and sentence must be set aside [citations omitted] regardless of how the error is brought to the attention of the reviewing court.” (La.
  • State v. Gaines 508 So. 2d 1017 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    We have recently held that "[whenever] appellant raises the issue of sufficiency through his assignments of error, we are constrained to review the record in this regard in light of [ State v. Raymo [ ]."
  • State v. Falls 508 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Parker 506 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) the following discussion will focus on whether the evidence was sufficient based on Jackson standard of review.