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. Mussall, 523 So. 2d 1305.

1462 citing documents.

  • State v. Eubanks 112 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    This Court’s function is not to determine whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence, but instead to “assure that the jurors did not speculate where the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Seaton 112 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Carmouche 117 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. James R Francis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Our supreme court has stated: 6 However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‟s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Jamal James Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Brent Authorlee La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Francis 111 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Our supreme court has stated: 17However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Authorlee 111 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Swanzy 110 So. 3d 549 La. 2013
    Although “cognizant that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” the court of appeal also observed that “the jury’s conclusion cannot stand if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.” Id., 11-0882 at 11-12, 96 So.3d at 504 ().
  • State v. Swanzy 144 So. 3d 711 La. 2013
    Although “cognizant that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” the court of appeal also observed that “the jury’s conclusion cannot stand if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.” Id., 11-0882 at 11-12, 96 So.3d at 504 ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Clements 112 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Rosheed Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Guillory 129 So. 3d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Willis J. Mouton AKA Willis James Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‟s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Mouton 129 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Krodinger 128 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodney Bernard Newton, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Johnson 109 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    However, the reviewing court may not disregard this duty “simply because the record contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Bryant Lakeith Bethley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    2781 (1979) (emphasis in original)
  • State of Louisiana v. Stanley Charles Young, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3 However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‘s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses ―only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.‖
  • State of Louisiana v. Bryant Lakeith Bethley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    Standard of Review The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original)
  • State v. Bethley 107 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)
  • State v. Bethley 107 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)
  • State v. Ferdinand 107 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Davis 108 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Davis 147 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. McNair 107 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. James Carol Bertrand La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Bertrand 104 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Williams 106 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    ( (generally, one witness’s positive identification is sufficient to support the conviction)).
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael Wayne Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy L. Bartie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Bartie 104 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Jones 105 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Sipp 104 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Clouatre 110 So. 3d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State of Louisiana v. Donald Runnels La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Dexter Holder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Our supreme court has stated: However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‘s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses ―only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.‖
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremiah R. Teno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    Our supreme court has stated: However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder=s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Teno 101 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Our supreme court has stated: However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finders discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Runnels 101 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Holder 101 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Our supreme court has stated: However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Burke 103 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Allen 101 So. 3d 41 La. 2012
    A reviewing court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • Distinguished State v. Pleasant 102 So. 3d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In support of his assignment of error, but the Mussall case is distinguishable from the instant case.