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. Captville, 448 So. 2d 676.

1134 citing documents.

  • State v. Youngblood 48 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State ex rel. K.M. 49 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    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 ex rel. S.O. 49 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
  • State v. Garner 47 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. James Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979))
  • State v. Jones 45 So. 3d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979))
  • State v. Hall 46 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La.1/21/09)
  • State v. Givens 41 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Louis Vernon Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Preston 40 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005) ().
  • State of Louisiana v. R. R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. RR 37 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. R.R. 37 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. M. L. Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    Under the Jackson 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.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Melanie S. Hanner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Hanner 35 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Sumrall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel James Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Sumrall 34 So. 3d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Broussard 34 So. 3d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. LANDOR 34 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Robinson 33 So. 3d 1019 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) ().
  • State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    art., we “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. Wilkes Laird La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Laird 30 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Zoran Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La.4/9/03)
  • State of Louisiana v. Oterrel Joseph Boutte La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    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 Ex Rel. Cb 28 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/29/01), (citing State v. Captville, 1982-2206 (La.2/27/84), ).
  • State v. Boutte 27 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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 ex rel. C.B. 28 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    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 (La.6/29/01), (citing State v. Captville, 1982-2206 (La.2/27/84), ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Anthony Dewayne Cyriak La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    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. Brown 26 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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 |nthat all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01), (
  • State v. Stephens 27 So. 3d 987 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), this “court must determine that the *989 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. Scott 26 So. 3d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
  • State v. Greene 26 So. 3d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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 v. Favors 28 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Kestle, 07-1573, p. 5 (La.12/2/08), , 278
  • State of Louisiana v. Alfonzo Jermaine Johnlouis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    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 of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Johnlouis 22 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 660 (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 of Louisiana v. Bacardny Wayne George La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State in the Interest of T.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    [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. George 19 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979))
  • State ex rel. T.W. 21 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    [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. Johnson 22 So. 3d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
  • State v. McKemie 17 So. 3d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Stukes 19 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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. Robinson 19 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (1984).
  • State v. QUAC TRAN 18 So. 3d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    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 v. Stogner 11 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009