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. Ball 209 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodricus C. Crawford 218 So. 3d 13 La. 2016
    In cases such as this one, where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution’s case must “exclude[] every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    In those cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the fundamental principle of review means that when a 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.”
  • State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    In those cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the fundamental principle of review means that when a 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.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State v. Young 203 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Worthy 203 So. 3d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2781 , 61 *378 L.Ed.2d 560 , (1979), we must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is “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. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Rose 206 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    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. Jones, 00-980 (La.App.
  • State v. Flowers 204 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    -81 (La.1984), The jury’s guilty verdicts here reflect the reasonable conclusion that, based on the testimony, the defendant committed aggravated rape and sexual battery on the victim over the course of several years.
  • State v. Gardner 204 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
  • State v. Falgout 198 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979): the court 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.” see also State v. Brown, 2003-0897, p. 18 (La.4/12/05), ; State v. Veal, 2012-0712, p. 17 (La.App.
  • State v. Matthews 200 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Scott 197 So. 3d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Under this standard, the appellate' court “must déter-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, [20]00-0674, (La.6/29/01) ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    1979)], this Court has further subscribed to the general principle in cases involving circumstantial evidence that when the fact finder at trial reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence advanced by the defendant, “that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Odeal Pippins Lirette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    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 v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ], this Court has further subscribed to the general principle in cases involving circumstantial evidence that when the fact finder at trial reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence advanced by the defendant, “that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Lirette 195 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    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 ex rel. Weldon v. State 201 So. 3d 885 La. 2016
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State v. Hickman 194 So. 3d 1160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    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, [20]00-0674 (La.6/29/01) ().
  • State v. McKinney 194 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Everette 192 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light Inmost 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, 2000-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01) ().
  • State v. Sandifer 195 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979): the court 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. Bland 194 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    A finding of purposeful misrepresentation, as in the case of flight following an offense, reasonably raises the inference of a “guilty mind.” , 680 n. 4 (La.1984).
  • State of Louisiana v. Adam Batiste, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    this court in State v. Jackson, 14-9, p. 4 (La.App.
  • State v. Batiste 189 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    this court in State v. Jackson, 14-9, p. 4 (La.App.
  • State v. Law 189 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Hartman 189 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Taylor, 721 So.2d at 932 .
  • State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Jackson v. Virginia, supra
  • State v. Turner 186 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Sosa, 05-0213 (La.1/19/06)
  • State ex rel. P.M. 186 So. 3d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 8/13/14), , 1193 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State in the Interest of J. A. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    .[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 ex rel. J.A. 179 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamal Anthony Charles AKA - Jamal A. Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Charles 178 So. 3d 1157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Kyle D. Hodde AKA - Kyle Daniel Hodde La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    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. Dominique Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    Preserving 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. Barbain 179 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    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. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Jackson 179 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 ) Preserving 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. Powell 179 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).