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. Duncan 15 So. 3d 1171 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. Olden 11 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. GRH 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. G. R. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Holland 13 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Black 12 So. 3d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Marilyn Roman Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Gilmore 11 So. 3d 575 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. Lively 11 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State v. Foreman 10 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an 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. Riley 10 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
  • State v. Fields 10 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert Wayne Aymond, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Wilbert Batiste, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    The supreme court has explained: In a case involving circumstantial evidence in which the jury has reasonably rejected the defense offered at trial, the reviewing court therefore “does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.” (emphasis in original).
  • State v. Aymond 8 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Batiste 5 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State v. Vincent 7 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Desoto 6 So. 3d 141 La. 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. Tillman 7 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Calloway 1 So. 3d 417 La. 2009
    l principle of appellate review that “[w]hen a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury 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.” Id., 07-0012 at 4, 978 So.2d at 383 (Pettigrew, J., dissenting)().
  • State v. Sartain 2 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Brewer 2 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Nelson 3 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Burnes 997 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Chism 3 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    [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. Hughes, 05-0992, p. 5 (La.11/29/06), ().
  • State v. Major 1 So. 3d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Kestle 996 So. 2d 275 La. 2008
  • State v. Baylor 998 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State v. DHILLY 996 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Hotard 994 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Adams 993 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
  • State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
  • State v. Nix 987 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Under this standard, the appellate court “must deter *864 mine 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. Collier 987 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    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. Bedou 985 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Derrick Baker, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Baker 986 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ezekiel Maurice McGinnis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Jones, 96-1581 (La.App.
  • State v. McGinnis 981 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Jones, 96-1581 (La.App.
  • State v. Frith 985 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Ordodi, 06-0207, p. 10 (La.11/29/06)
  • State of Louisiana v. Archie Louis Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Carter 981 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Clinton B. Schneider, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    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. Schneider 981 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
  • State v. Turnage 978 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. Gary Lafleur La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. LaFleur 977 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
  • State v. Griffin 984 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Buckenberger 984 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008