Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Captville, 448 So. 2d 676.

1134 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kerry Jerrod Sanders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Tanesha Hardy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Elie 74 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Hardy 72 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” ...
State v. Sanders 74 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Shawn Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781 (1979); State v. Captville, 9
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Shelton 75 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Moore 75 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State ex rel. C.D. 69 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
The Jackson v. Virginia standard of review specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact “that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State ex rel. C.N. 69 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact “that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , , (La.2/27/84).
State Ex Rel. Cn 69 So. 3d 711 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , , (La.2/27/84).
State of Louisiana v. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Demond Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Hayes 70 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. McMillian 65 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Courtney Paul Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State ex rel. D.D. 65 So. 3d 685 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact “that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
State of Louisiana v. Kent Dale Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Simon 62 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Sylvester 63 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State of Louisiana v. George Jameson Gray, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Phillips 61 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Peters 60 So. 3d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. SWANZY 61 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “the appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Smith 58 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State ex rel. C.J. 60 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State of Louisiana v. Jerome Montrell Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Thomas 54 So. 3d 1268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Greene 55 So. 3d 775 La. 2011
The state may present direct or circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent, Bias, 400 So.2d at 652 , and in cases of circumstantial evidence, when the fact finder “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant’s own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
State of Louisiana v. David G. Sarpy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Sarpy 52 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Summers 52 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
In Reference to the Interdiction of Jones 54 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ” State in Interest of R.J.S., , 1202.
State of Louisiana v. Edward D. Gresham La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Clyde A. Bowens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), “[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Strother 49 So. 3d 372 La. 2010
dant performed any intentional act that caused serious bodily |1Tinjury to the child when her arm fractured at the elbow, this fundamental principle of review means that when a jury “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
State of Louisiana v. Travis Dewayne Megason La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Michael W. Hood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and must determine “whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6 (La.1984).
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier 1 of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. MEGASON 47 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Thomas 48 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier |2of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Fernandez 50 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Under that standard, “the appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State Ex Rel. Km 49 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
State v. Neal, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), , (La.