Cited by

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

1134 citing documents.

State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. William King, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Wardell Christopher Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Albert L. Arnold La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State in the Interest of N. F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is that “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.” (footnote omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 124 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. King 124 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Arnold 124 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State ex rel. N.F. 124 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is that “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.” (footnote omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Shelwin Markise Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
filed September 20, 2006 (No. 06-6799)
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Weldon Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Thompson 123 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 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, [20]00 — 0674 (La.6/29/01), ().
State v. Caliste 125 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 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 ex rel. A.N. 123 So. 3d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and, accordingly, 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.” (citation omitted).
State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor 123 So. 3d 256 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 of Louisiana v. Eric John Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d 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. Anderson 116 So. 3d 1045 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 of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Jones 119 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Batiste, 2006-0875, p. 7 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Daye La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
d for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is as follows: ―[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. Kelvin Moses La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Aaron Francois La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Francois 114 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Ross 115 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires the court to 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, 03-0897, p. 18 (La.4/12/05), ; State v. Batiste, 06-0875, p. 7 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Johnny L. Eubanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
4/14/04), our supreme court stated: In cases involving circumstantial evidence, when the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence advanced by the defense, “that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Eubanks 112 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Francois, 03-1313, p. 4 (La.4/14/04), , 128 our supreme court stated: In cases involving circumstantial evidence, when the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence advanced by the defense, “that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.”
State of Louisiana v. James R Francis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Debra Sue Schjenken AKA Debra Sue Hewitt AKA Debra Odir La. Ct. App. 3d 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 of Louisiana v. Ernest Joseph Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); 1 Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of aggravated burglary.
State v. Francis 111 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Arceneaux 111 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); , 678 12(La.1984)).
State v. Swanzy 110 So. 3d 549 La. 2013
(“When a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant ] ...
State v. Swanzy 144 So. 3d 711 La. 2013
(‘When a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant ] ...
State v. Buhcannon 112 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Using the Jackson 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 |inelements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), ().
State of Louisiana v. Willis J. Mouton AKA Willis James Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Mouton 129 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Stanley Charles Young, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. James Lee Burks, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State v. Brown 109 So. 3d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Accordingly, we “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. Ferdinand 107 So. 3d 1266 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.”