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. Wright, 445 So. 2d 1198.

560 citing documents.

  • State v. Ford 525 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    ’ ” O’Pry, supra, at pg.
  • State v. Green 524 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
  • State v. Hall 524 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Doyle 525 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    " The threshold issue for our determination is whether, contrary to the determination of the trial court in its disposition of defendant’s motion for post verdict judgment of acquittal, defendant was, as contended by the State, a principal to the crime of second-degree murder.
  • State v. Wooley 523 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Rather, it is an evidentiary guideline to “facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Morris 521 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Vidrine 521 So. 2d 472 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Brown 517 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Howkins 516 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Prince 520 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Murray 514 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Cass 514 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Smith 513 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hernandez 513 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Robertson 511 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State *1245 v. Hobbs
  • State v. Evans 512 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. O'Pry 511 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    ” *90 The direct and circumstantial evidence adduced in this case, which we have briefly summarized, is certainly sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crimes charged proved beyond a reasonable dou
  • State v. Cupit 508 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Bunch 510 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Carmouche 508 So. 2d 792 La. 1987
  • State v. Evans 506 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
  • State v. Baptiste 506 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Green 505 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    ” When viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of armed robbery of the victim by either the taking of his money or his truck by the defendant.
  • State v. Harrison 505 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. McCullough 503 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    ” Defendant was convicted of violating section A of R.S.
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    State v. Chism, supra [ ]
  • State v. Mercadel 503 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Darby 502 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    The Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated the test which a rehearing denied, wherein the court stated: "The constitutional standard for testing the sufficiency of evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bolden 501 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Garmouche 508 So. 2d 792 La. 1987
  • State v. James 499 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Landry 499 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Fraley 499 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Feraci 499 So. 2d 1218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Petta 496 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Ellzey 496 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Holmes 497 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Hobbs 494 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
  • State v. Cann 494 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Glenn 493 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
  • State v. Loyd 489 So. 2d 898 La. 1986
  • State v. McBride 492 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • 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. Whitaker 489 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Smith 490 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Rosiere 488 So. 2d 965 La. 1986
  • State v. Barnes 489 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986