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. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 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 v. Alexander 182 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Willie James Robertson 172 So. 3d 616 La. 2015
    In cases of circumstantial evidence, the Jackson standard means that when a jury “reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the [defense], that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Campbell 171 So. 3d 1176 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. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “the appellate court must determine that the |4evidence, 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. Thomas 171 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which *965 dictates that to affirm a conviction “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 [ficrime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Glyndale Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    this fundamental principle of review means that when a 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. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Arceneaux 164 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    this fundamental principle of review means that when a 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.” (La.
  • State v. Green 164 So. 3d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Sosa, 2005-0213 (La.1/19/06), , rehearing denied, (3/10/06); State v. Capt *340 ville, 82-2206 (La.1984), , rehearing denied, (3/23/84).
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest Carter, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Carter 160 So. 3d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Wayne G. Taylor A/K/A Wayne Taylor 166 So. 3d 988 La. 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.” (La.
  • State v. Nelson 169 So. 3d 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    deference demanded by Jackson , the Louisiana Supreme Court has further subscribed to the general principle in cases involving circumstantial evidence that when the factfinder 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. Jackson 163 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Brian Lowell Frazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    this fundamental principle of review means that when a 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 of Louisiana v. Jaymes Larmar Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Harris 157 So. 3d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Additionally, when a 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. Strother, 09-2357, p. 11 (La.10/22/10), ().
  • State v. Frazier 157 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.” (La.
  • State v. Aguillard 158 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “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 *980 beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Edwards 162 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    1/19/06), ; State v. Captville, 82-2206 (La.2/27/84), .
  • State v. Ricks 194 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Sosa, 2005-0213 (La.1/19/06), , reh’g denied, 3/10/06; State v. Captville, 82-2206 (La.2/27/84), , reh’g denied, 3/23/84.
  • State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction, “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 |sall of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Alverez 158 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “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. Bowens 156 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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, 2000-0674 (La.6/29/01) *774 ().
  • State v. Handy 156 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Alexis 157 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    [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. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01) (); see also State v. Magee, 2012-1025, p. 18 (La.App.
  • State v. Watts 168 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Troy Edward Delozier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Delozier 151 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Jackson v. Virginia, supra
  • State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Spencer 151 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The appellate court must determine whether the evidence, “viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact *823 that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Coby Quinton Ceasar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    [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 of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State in the Interest of D. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Ceasar 149 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. D.J. 149 So. 3d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    [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. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “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. Melancon 151 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that a reviewing court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by defendant which could explain the events in an exculpatory fashion.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson La. 2014
  • State v. Lewis 147 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Ennis, 2011-976, pp. 4-5 (La.App.
  • State v. Hamed 147 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which dictates that to affirm a conviction “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. Cushenberry 146 So. 3d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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 of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Tony Jackson, AKA Leoanrdo Jackson, AKA Leon Jackson, AKA Leonardo Marice Jackson, AKA Leonard … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    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. Jackson 146 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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 *635 hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”