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 of Louisiana v. Rogrick M. Van Dyke La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. D. R. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Francis 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. Jonathan L.citizen 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. Byran Louis Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Fogleman 98 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Smith 101 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. T.T. 111 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Lilly 111 So. 3d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Barnes 100 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Shannon 101 So. 3d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Winston 100 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “In reviewing the evidence, the whole record must be considered because a rational trier of fact would consider all of the evidence, and the actual trier of fact is presumed to have acted rationally until it appears otherwise.”
  • State v. Kirk 98 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Terrance L. Sinegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Sinegal 97 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State in the Interest of C.D. 93 So. 3d 1272 La. 2012
    ” the court of appeal observed that “Louisiana jurisprudence has recognized that there are instances in which ‘numerous eccentricities, unusual coincidences and lack of corroboration’ make such testimony so unreliable that even a reasonably pro-prosecution rational fact finder must have a reasonable doubt about the identification.” Id., 11-0121 at 7-8, 69 So.3d at 1223 ().
  • State of Louisiana v. Dryefus Malbrough La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Malbrough 94 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Williams 97 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. L. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    We do so because “a rational trier of fact would consider all of the evidence.”
  • State v. Lewis 95 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. K.W. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    A reviewing court may intrude on the plenary discretion of the fact finder ―only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.‖ (footnote and citation omitted).
  • State v. Swanzy 96 So. 3d 498 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Joseph McKithern La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    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. Alfonzo Jewade Segura La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. McKithern 93 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Authier 92 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: After reviewing Jackson and the foregoing authorities, we conclude that a reviewing court may not disregard its duty under due process of law as interpreted by Jackson v. Virginia simply because the record contains testimony which tends to support each fact necessary t
  • State of Louisiana v. Willie R. Pitts La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    ne of Jackson v. Virginia is rationality and that “irrational decisions to convict will be overturned, rational decisions to convict will be upheld, and the actual fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.”
  • State v. Pitts 87 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Massey 91 So. 3d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), ().
  • State v. Underdonk 92 So. 3d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry L. Clarkson 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. Clarkson 86 So. 3d 804 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. Jackson 87 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    For these reasons, counsel urges in her brief that the appellate court should impinge on the jury’s discretion and role in determining the credibility of the witnesses to guarantee that fundamental due process requirements are met
  • State v. Pittman 85 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Anderson 85 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Patterson 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. Patterson 83 So. 3d 1209 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. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
    The trier of fact evaluates Isftthe evidence and makes credibility determinations and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness; thus, a reviewing court may impinge on the “fact finder’s discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
  • State v. Wyatt 83 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Edward Lee Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Avis Renea Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Trahan 101 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011