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. Hayes 108 So. 3d 360 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 v. Ellis 109 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Applying 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 elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (Laj6/29/01), ().
  • State v. Sipp 104 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Dexter Holder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremiah R. Teno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Teno 101 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Holder 101 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Jones 101 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Davis 111 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Captville, 82-2206 (La.2/27/84), .
  • State v. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which states that 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. Jonathan L.citizen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Jerry Steinle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    [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. D. R. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    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. Steinle 98 So. 3d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    [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. Winston 100 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Ennis 97 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Woods 91 So. 3d 289 La. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), according to which an 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 ex rel. T.E. 91 So. 3d 292 La. 2012
    (“When a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects |7the 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. Christopher H. Joseph La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    [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. Joseph 94 So. 3d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)_ [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 in the Interest of C.P. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)....[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. Demarcus Fobb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State ex rel. C.P. 91 So. 3d 1273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    [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. Fobb 91 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    102 , 148 L.Ed.2d 61 (2000) ().
  • State ex rel. A.D. 95 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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.6/29/0l), , citing State v. Captville, *1180
  • State v. Morton 97 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
    sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a | ^reasonable doubt.’ ” Id.
  • State of Louisiana v. Chad Tyrone Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Cavazos 94 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Joseph McKithern La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. McKithern 93 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State ex rel. S.P. 90 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Underdonk 92 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry L. Clarkson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Clarkson 86 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
  • State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. McCord 85 So. 3d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Marrero 92 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Patterson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    1279 (2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Gary Wayne Woods La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State in the Interest of J.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    [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. Patterson 83 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Robinson 87 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id., ().
  • State v. Mosley 80 So. 3d 1164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Untereiner 82 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id.
  • State v. Robinson 81 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Under 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 elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Neal, 00-0674, p. 9 (La.6/29/01), (quoting State v, Captville, ).
  • State v. Richards 78 So. 3d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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 |3of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Neal, 00-0674, (La.6/29/01), ().
  • State v. Hawkins 78 So. 3d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    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. R.A. 101 So. 3d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) and, accordingly, must determine “whether the evidence, viewed in the fight 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).