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. King 520 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Vigee 518 So. 2d 501 La. 1988
  • State v. Wiggins 518 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Freeman 517 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Perkins 517 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Williams 515 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    15:438 mandates 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.” This is not separate from the Jackson standard, but rather a “helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.” State v. Porretto, supra
  • State v. Barnes 520 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2d 560 (1979) regarding the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence.
  • State v. Prince 520 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Kennington 515 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. McDaniel 515 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State in Interest of TL 514 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Converse 515 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Rather the reviewing court evaluates the evidence in the light *605 most favorable to the prosecution and determines whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not `have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
  • State v. Burge 515 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Murphy 515 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Tyner 517 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Price 517 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. LaGarde 513 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hernandez 513 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Lynch 512 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hersman 511 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    This is the standard proclaimed by and in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, and many other cases.
  • State v. Moten 510 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Baham 509 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hilburn 512 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Deselle 509 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Mangrum 509 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Arabie 507 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Brand 506 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Bennett 506 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Wright 506 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Schrader 506 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Jacobs 504 So. 2d 817 La. 1987
  • State v. Bradley 504 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Hawkins 504 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), was satisfied.
  • State v. Blaise 504 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Foley 504 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
  • State v. Edge 504 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. DeShazo 504 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Tullier 504 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Freeman 506 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Brown 504 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Waymire 504 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    State v. Chism, supra [ ]
  • State v. Ruff 504 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hutchins 502 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. O'NEAL 501 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Franklin 501 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    at pp. 678 and 679, explained the standard to be used in evaluating such claims as follows: "An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing *885 that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
  • State v. Richson 501 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Higgins 501 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Williams 500 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Brooks 499 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986