Cited by

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

184 citing documents.

State v. Merrell 442 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Howard 441 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Robinson 441 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d *367 560, 573 (1979); (1983); at 1102
State v. Donald 440 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Foy 439 So. 2d 433 La. 1983
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Huizar, supra; and State v. Molinario, supra.
State v. Ourso 438 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Powell 438 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Anderson 440 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Buchanan 439 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Thomas 439 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Myles 439 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) to be: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could conclude that the state proved every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Daigle 439 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State, in Interest of Cason 438 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
*1103 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. Korman 439 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Jacobs 435 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Norman 434 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Vessel 435 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Accepting defendant’s interpretation of the evidence as totally circumstantial, in which the Court stated, at page 129: “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires this court to review the evidence upon which a criminal conviction is based to determine whether it is minimally sufficient.
State v. Chism 436 So. 2d 464 La. 1983
which we handed down the same day as Moore .
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
State v. Trevathan 432 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5 The sentence meted out to defendant, i.e., life imprisonment without benefit of probation, suspension, or parole, is statutorily mandated and has been held not to constitute cruel and unusual punishment
State, in Interest of Racine 433 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Durr v. Cook, 589 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1979).
State v. Hill 434 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Sanders 431 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Rosado 431 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
the court articulated a dual test to determine the sufficiency of evidence in cases where, as here, the State’s proof rests entirely on circumstantial evidence: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires this court to review the evidence upon which a criminal conviction is based to det
State v. Shapiro 431 So. 2d 372 La. 1983
15:438 in tandem, [6] at 129 (La.1982), as follows: [A] merger does not appear to promote clarity but could lead to a distortion of the standards.
State v. Oliney 430 So. 2d 1294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Moore 432 So. 2d 209 La. 1983
State v. Ricks 428 So. 2d 794 La. 1983
State v. Ruple 426 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Parker 425 So. 2d 683 La. 1982
: "The possibility that the murder occurred in this way is reduced further by the facts inconsistent with defendant's theory which the evidence also tends to prove.
State v. Robinson 423 So. 2d 1053 La. 1982
Concerning sufficiency of evidence and circumstantial evidence, had this to say: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires this court to review the evidence upon which a criminal conviction is based to determine whether it is minimally sufficient.