Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mussall, 523 So. 2d 1305.

1462 citing documents.

State v. Williams 80 So. 3d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Spears, 05-0964, p. 3 (La.4/4/06)
State of Louisiana v. Jerry H. Credeur, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Credeur 81 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Nailor 78 So. 3d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lobo 77 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
and State v. Johnson, 03-903 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. F. F. Q. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
182 (2005) ( 5 (La.1988)).
State v. F.F.Q. 73 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005) ().
State v. FFQ 73 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005) ().
State v. LeBlanc 76 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Shawn Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Our supreme court has stated: 23 However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finder‟s 24 discretion and its role in determining the credibility of witnesses “only 25 to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of 26 law.”
State v. White 74 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
On appeal, this court may impinge on the fact finder’s discretion and its role in determining the credibility of the witnesses “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Shelton 75 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
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. Sims 75 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
Neal , 00-0674 at 11, 796 So.2d at 658 (); See also United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1322 (5th Cir.1989).
State v. Fortenberry 73 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Mary Henderson Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Trahan 69 So. 3d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State ex rel. C.D. 69 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
State v. Woodfork, 1999-0859, p. 5 (La.App 4 Cir. 5/17/00)
State v. Ray 70 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Matthews 70 So. 3d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
However, the reviewing court must review the entire record, not just evidence which supports the prosecution’s case, because “a rational trier of fact would consider all of the evidence.”
State of Louisiana v. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Demond Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Weary, 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311; Neal, 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. Adams 68 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
As a reviewing court, we “must consider the record through the eyes of a hypothetical trier of fact who interprets all of the evidence as favorably to the prosecution as any rational fact finder can.” see also State v. Jackson, 09-2406 (La.1/19/11), .
State v. Pleasant 66 So. 3d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Black, 09-1664, p. 15 (La.App.
State v. Payton 68 So. 3d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. McMillian 65 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Courtney Paul Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. A. D. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
[State v.] Mussall, [(La.1988)]; [State v.] Green, [(La.App.
State v. Collins 65 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. A.D.L. 64 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
[State v.] Mussall, [ (La.1988)]; [State v.] Green, [ (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Alex P. Papillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
(generally, one witness’s positive identification is sufficient to support the conviction); State v. Ford, 28,724 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), -50, writ denied, 99-0210 (La.5/14/99)
State of Louisiana v. Alvin Donald Parker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Papillion 63 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(generally, one witness’s positive identification is sufficient to support the conviction); State v. Ford, 28,724 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), -50 , writ denied, 99-0210 (La.5/14/99), ....
State v. Wells 64 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Green 62 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jason Allen Lomax La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
(generally, one witness’s positive identification is sufficient to support the conviction); State v. Ford, 28,724 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/30/96), -50, writ denied, 99-0210 (La.5/14/99)
State v. SWANZY 61 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Brown 56 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Robinson 54 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Kelly 54 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The appellate court “may not disregard this duty simply because the record *1163 contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime.” State v. Monds, 91-0589, p. 4 (La.App.
State v. Monroe 53 So. 3d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Loper 48 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207, p. 10 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Lewis 48 So. 3d 1073 La. 2010
The court of appeal also applied the settled rule on review of the sufficiency of evidence that “the fact finder is given much discretion in determinations of credibility and evidence, and the reviewing court will only impinge on his discretion to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” Lewis , 08-1317 at 10, 16 So.3d at 391 ().
State v. Strother 49 So. 3d 372 La. 2010
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 ex rel. D.R. 50 So. 3d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S. Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 , 68 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Marinello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. James E. Ramsdell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
denied, 535 U.S. 940, 122 S.Ct 1323 (2002), citing State v. 7 Mussall
State of Louisiana v. B. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
[State v.] Mussall, [(La.1988)]; [State v.] Green, [(La.App.
State v. Marinello 49 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Ramsdell 47 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1323 , 152 L.Ed.2d 231 (2002)