Cited by

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

1134 citing documents.

State v. Ordodi 946 So. 2d 654 La. 2006
filed September 20, 2006 (No. 06-6799)
State v. Marshall 943 So. 2d 362 La. 2006
NOTES [1] the court stated: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. John Thompson, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Thompson 943 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Godbolt 950 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Lisa Landry Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Johnson 941 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Wade C. Griffin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
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.”
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Waguespack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Bell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Waguespack 939 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Griffin 940 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Delco 943 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Leger 936 So. 2d 108 La. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Larry Surratt and Cynthia Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
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. Surratt 932 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Lane Francois, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
On appeal, we must examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct.
State v. Francois 926 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Spears 929 So. 2d 1219 La. 2006
State v. Walker 930 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01) ().
State v. Williams 924 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State of Louisiana v. Larry James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
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. Dawn R. Hargrave La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); 678 (La.1984).
State v. Hargrave 926 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
State v. Pigford 922 So. 2d 517 La. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Sosa 921 So. 2d 94 La. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
State v. Scott 921 So. 2d 904 La. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Williams 925 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Robinson 918 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Melvin B. Morris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
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. Billy Ray Robinson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
On appeal, courts 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.”
State v. Morris 918 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Jefferson 922 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v, Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Weaver 917 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Lewis 917 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Stewart 909 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01)[,] ().
State v. Brown 907 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State of Louisiana v. David Lee Leger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Leger 907 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Coleman 918 So. 2d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
State v. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
State v. Glenn 900 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
[9] State v. Smith, 877 So.2d at 1134 ( (La.
State v. Pitre 893 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Pitre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
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. Samuel Glenn Teague La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Teague 893 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La.4/9/03)
State v. McGee 894 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005