Cited by

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

1134 citing documents.

State v. Fields 801 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
15:438 provides that, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Lee 800 So. 2d 833 La. 2001
[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. *841 Captville, (burden of proof in a criminal contempt proceeding is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Young 800 So. 2d 847 La. 2001
State v. Richthofen 803 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Jones 799 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. Ducre 809 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Neal 796 So. 2d 649 La. 2001
State v. Andy 793 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Mitchell, 99-3342 (La.10/17/00)
State v. Ledet 792 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Randolph 788 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Patterson, 99-994 (La.App.
State v. Evans 786 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Hutcherson 785 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
Id.; Hoffman, 768 So.2d at 585
State v. Cohn 783 So. 2d 1269 La. 2001
State v. Anderson 784 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Marston 780 So. 2d 1058 La. 2001
State v. Eskano 779 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Weidenbacker 782 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Turner 779 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Juluke, 98-0341, 725 So.2d at 1293 () (emphasis in original).
State v. Jones 777 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
15:438 provides that, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Clark 780 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Tilley, 99-569 (La.7/6/00); *421
State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Jones 772 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Mitchell 772 So. 2d 78 La. 2000
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
15:438 provides that “assuming every fact to be proved that the [circumstantial] evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La.App.
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Schmidt 771 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Vortisch 763 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Myers 760 So. 2d 310 La. 2000
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Porter 761 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Hoffman 768 So. 2d 542 La. 2000
State v. Anthony 776 So. 2d 376 La. 2000
2781, 2788-2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573-574 (1979)
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Brooks 755 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
In State v. Juluke, 98-341, p. 5 (La.1/8/99); (), the supreme court 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 e
State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
State v. Carthan 765 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Chester, 97-1001, p. 1 (La.12/19/97); ( (alteration in original)).
State v. Johnston 757 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Shields 743 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Williams, 95-0579 (La.App.
State v. Thibodeaux 750 So. 2d 916 La. 1999
State v. Allen 742 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Wooten 738 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Tran, 97-640 (La.
State v. Divine 738 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Porter 740 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Williams, 95-0579 (La.App.
State v. Dixon 732 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
“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. Howard 751 So. 2d 783 La. 1999
State v. Ewens 735 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999