Cited by

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

1134 citing documents.

State v. Alridge 249 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
6/29/01), , 657 (citing State v. Captville , , 678 (La.1984) ).
State v. Kitts 250 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Captville , , 680 (La.
State v. Domingue 244 So. 3d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Captville , , 678 (La.1984)....
State of Louisiana v. Michael Adam Domingue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
[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. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
6/29/01), , 657 (citing State v. Captville , , 678 (La.
State v. Nixon 250 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See State v. Captville , , 680 (La.
State v. Coleman 249 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Captville , , 680 (La.
State v. Harrison 239 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
6/29/01), , 657 (citing State v. Captville , , 678 (La.1984) ).
State of Louisiana v. Billy Dean Cotten La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
rving the role of the factfinder means that in cases involving circumstantial evidence, when “the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant [ ], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Cotten 241 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Captville , , 680 (La.1984).
State of Louisiana v. Kentrell D. McElroy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
[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. McElroy 241 So. 3d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Captville , , 678 (La.1984).
State v. Raine 238 So. 3d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
5/7/14), , 989 (quoting State v. Captville , , 680 (La.
State v. James 243 So. 3d 717 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Wooten 244 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
" State v. Captville , (La.
State of Louisiana v. Darryl Jones La. 2018
1982) (citation omitted); (La.
State v. Cretian 238 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
6/29/01), , 657 (citing State v. Captville , , 678 (La.1984) ).
State of Louisiana v. Michael Kees La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Louisiana Supreme Court “has found that „[w]hen a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by [defendant], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a 7 reasonable doubt.‟” Ellis, 179 So.3d at 588 ().
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Robert Sinegal -Aka- Robert Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Gregory Hampton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
When applying the Jackson standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court “has found that „[w]hen a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by [defendant], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.‟” Ellis, 179 So.3d at 588 ().
State v. Hampton 259 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
" Ellis , 179 So.3d at 588 (quoting State v. Captville , , 680 (La.1984) ).
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Lewis 236 So. 3d 1197 La. 2017
1982) (citation omitted); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Fahim A. Shaikh 236 So. 3d 1206 La. 2017
A reasonable alternative hypothesis is not one that merely “could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion,” but one that, after viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, “is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not ‘have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph McKinley Guillory AKA Joseph Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), ).
State in the Interest of J.R., III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
[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. Guillory 229 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), ).
State of Louisiana v. Kyle James Toups La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
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.” (La.
State v. Murray 223 So. 3d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Toups 224 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
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.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee 223 So. 3d 1136 La. 2017
[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.” (La.
State v. Dyson 222 So. 3d 220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Corlious C. Dyson AKA Corlious Corall Dyson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01)
State v. Walker 221 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Dyson 220 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Gary D. Howard 226 So. 3d 419 La. 2017
[T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, 2 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. Kennon Richard AKA Kennan Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Christopher O. James La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Stormy Nicole Cofer AKA Stormy Cofer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Cofer 216 So. 3d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2781 , 61 L,Ed.2d 560 (1979), ).
State v. Richard 216 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. James 216 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Andre J. Davis 221 So. 3d 28 La. 2017
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Sylvia, 01-1406, p. 2 (La.4/9/03), (La.
State of Louisiana v. Joenell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Rubin 211 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Breedlove 213 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
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.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Clark 220 So. 3d 583 La. 2016
State v. Farris 210 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Tate, 01-1658 (La.5/20/03), ().