DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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. Stevens 140 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Jon Dickerson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Jared J. Tidwell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel Joseph Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Wilford B. Vangure AKA Wilfred Vangure AKA Wilfred B. Vangure La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodney L. Johnson, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Johnson 140 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Dickerson 140 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Tidwell 139 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Harold Lee Julien, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Brown, 02- 1922 (La.5/20/03)
  • State v. Julien 139 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Brown, 02-1922 (La.5/20/03)
  • State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest R. Billiot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); 4 (La.1984)).
  • State of Louisiana v. Caleb A. Baxley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    (footnote omitted), the supreme court discussed review of sufficiency of the evidence claims, stating that: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supre
  • State v. Baxley 139 So. 3d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (footnote omitted), the supreme court discussed review of sufficiency of the evidence claims, stating that: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virg
  • State of Louisiana v. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781 (1979); (La.1984)).
  • State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mack 144 So. 3d 983 La. 2014
    to accord the deference demanded by Jackson , 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 ex rel. K.D. 140 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence was Insufficient 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 in the Interest of E. T. 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 ex rel. E.T. 136 So. 3d 971 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. Cobb 144 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Gregoire 143 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. A.W. 137 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It specifically requires that the appellate court must determine that the evidence 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 of Louisiana v. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    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 in the Intrest C. V. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    [T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 15 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. C.V. 134 So. 3d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    [T]he appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, |1fiwas 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. Laneheart 135 So. 3d 1221 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. Oliphant 133 So. 3d 1255 La. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Sidney John Handy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamaal Cole Diggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    2781 (1979); State v. Captville, 5 ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Isiah Demon Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State in the Interest of S. D. 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 in the Intrest of B. R. 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 v. Handy 154 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Lively 153 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 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, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
  • State v. Jackson 132 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    State v. Swanzy, 2012-1297 (La.4/1/13), ; State v. Mosley, 46,756 (La.App.2d Cir.12/16/11), , writ denied, 2012-0117 (La.5/4/12), .
  • State v. Vessel 131 So. 3d 523 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. Carter 131 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    [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. Smith 130 So. 3d 874 La. 2013
    When a case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence and jurors reasonably reject the hypothesis of innocence advanced by the defendant, “that hypothesis falls, and the 17defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Pierce 131 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Martin 131 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013