Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Graham, 422 So. 2d 123.

184 citing documents.

State v. Hereford 518 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Thibodeaux 509 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Tezeno 507 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Hebert 507 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the constitutional standards to judge the sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Freeman 506 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
In some cases [ ], a defendant’s hypothesis or theory of innocence may be found to be remote, treasonable, and inconsistent with the totality of the evidence when compared with the prosecution’s hypothesis of guilt.
State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. James 499 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
appeal dismissed 461 U.S. 950 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Farmer 497 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the constitutional standards to judge the sufficiency of the evidence.
State v. Roy 496 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Cann 494 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
with the prosecution’s hypothesis of defendant’s guilt, which is consistent overall with the evidence.”
State v. Floyd 490 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
State v. Guirlando 491 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
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. Magee 487 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
appeal dismissed, 461 U.S. 750 , 103 S.Ct.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Williams 476 So. 2d 810 La. 1985
15:470; Code of Jud.Cond.Canon 3(A)(4)
State v. McFadden 476 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Campbell 474 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
State v. Mosely 475 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Long 473 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Lilly 468 So. 2d 1154 La. 1985
we had occasion to consider the constitutional and statutory standards by which the sufficiency of evidence is to be judged in this state.
State v. Cantu 469 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Arnold 466 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Hines 465 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Ashley 463 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Ester 458 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
State v. Morris 457 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Durr v. Cook, supra; (La.
State v. Porter 454 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Mitchell 453 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Walker 451 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
(No. 82-KA-2012), the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
State v. Davis 451 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Kendig 451 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Slaughter 451 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Dryer 449 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 *1171 (1979); [6]
State v. Hayes 446 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Moore 446 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); rehearing denied Dec.
State v. Captville 448 So. 2d 676 La. 1984
the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
State v. Griffon 448 So. 2d 1287 La. 1984
State v. Nash 446 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Strong 446 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Lawson 446 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Adams 446 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Rault 445 So. 2d 1203 La. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Lee 445 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
appeal dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 442 So. 2d 848 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Sweeney 443 So. 2d 522 La. 1983
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Trosclair 443 So. 2d 1098 La. 1983
State v. Johnson 442 So. 2d 1141 La. 1983
1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972)
State v. Bell 442 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Cf., rehearing denied 1982.