Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Chism, 436 So. 2d 464.

249 citing documents.

State v. Fluitt 482 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Wright, supra ; "
State v. Jackson 480 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Hernandez 478 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
We note, “in addition to the assertion of witnesses as to what they have observed, circumstantial evidence involves a process of reasoning, or inference by which a conclusion is drawn.” (La.App.
State v. Holbrook 476 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
*586 State v. Wright, supra; State v. Sutton, supra; ” In order to address this issue fully, we will reiterate the facts as set forth earlier in the opinion and elaborate where necessary.
State v. Benoit 477 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Rounds 476 So. 2d 965 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. McFadden 476 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
150 (1954); CCrP Art. 798(3); (La.
State v. Lambert 475 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Lilly 468 So. 2d 1154 La. 1985
we integrated the two rules saying: "Although the circumstantial evidence rule may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable jurors reasonable doubt formula, it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for it
State v. Harriman 469 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Milton 469 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Carprue 468 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Effit 467 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Wade 467 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Elliott 467 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Cook 465 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Daley 463 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
State v. Landry 463 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State in Interest of Johnson 461 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); cert.
State v. Eason 460 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Wright, supra; State v. Sutton, supra
State v. Brown 458 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In regard to the correct standard of appellate review in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the Louisiana Supreme Court has most recently made the following state *1045 : ‘Although the circumstantial evidence rule may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror’s reasonable doubt formula, it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on
State v. Ledet 458 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
In regard to the correct standard of appellate review in cases involving circumstantial evidence, : "Although the circumstantial evidence rule may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on
State v. Hamilton 459 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Ester 458 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Wright, supra; State v. Sutton, supra
State v. Wingo 457 So. 2d 1159 La. 1984
Explained State v. Martin 458 So. 2d 454 La. 1984
we explained the relationship of the circumstantial evidence standard and the Jackson standard: Although the circumstantial evidence rule may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the us
State v. Johnson 457 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Morris 457 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Harris 454 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
State v. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Porter 454 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Kendig 451 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
See also: State v. Johnson, supra
State v. Slaughter 451 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Jones 451 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
the circumstantial evidence rule of LSA-R.S.
State v. Nealy 450 So. 2d 634 La. 1984
State v. Wright, supra ; State v. Sutton, supra
State v. Tomlinson 450 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Knox 450 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) we find that the evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, would convince any rational trier of fact that defendant’s guilt had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
State v. Captville 448 So. 2d 676 La. 1984
State v. Camp 446 So. 2d 1207 La. 1984
Section 438 "may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, [but] it emphasizes the need for careful observation of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of
State v. Willis 446 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Nash 446 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Wright 445 So. 2d 1198 La. 1984
State v. Henry 439 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Recently the holding of the Shapiro case that Louisiana's standard of proof regarding circumstantial evidence is stricter than the federal standard as enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia , (1983) (1983).
State v. Smith 441 So. 2d 739 La. 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. Johnson 440 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
State v. Sutton 436 So. 2d 471 La. 1983
Judicial College 1980); (La.