Cited by

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

1462 citing documents.

State v. Bedou 985 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Frith 985 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Davis, XXXX-XXXX p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), , 558 (emphasis in original).
State v. Forbs 983 So. 2d 954 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Simmons 983 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. White 982 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); ).
State of Louisiana v. Louis Hayes, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 1101 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Griffin 984 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
art. 821(B); -09 (La.1988).
State v. McGeorge 977 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Guidroz 977 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Calvin Joseph Coleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
However, “Due Process requires the reviewing court to determine ‘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 beyond a reasonable doubt.’” -09 (La.1988) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct.
State v. Coleman 976 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
However, "Due Process requires the reviewing court to determine `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 beyond a reasonable doubt.'" -09 (La.1988) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Paul D. Massey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
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 5 necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.’ ” State v. Davis, 2002-1043 p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), (emphasis in original).
State v. Sims 973 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.
State v. Fedele 973 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
P. art. 821(B); -1309 (La.
State v. DUPONT 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.
State v. Lopez 971 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Calloway 978 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. LEAGEA 966 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. LANUS 966 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Adams 966 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.
State v. Gann 969 So. 2d 690 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Kennedy, 05-1981, p. 24 (La.5/22/07)
State of Louisiana v. Brian Gann La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Braziel 968 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Martin 970 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
See, e.g., State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05)
State v. Galindo 968 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Harris 966 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
See, State v. Rice, supra ; State v. Ford, 28,724 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/30/96), , writ denied, 99-0210 (La.5/14/99), .
State v. Harris 968 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
5 Cir. 3/26/02) , ; writ denied, 02-1457 (La.5/9/03), , (citing; ).
State v. Harper 970 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Thus, (a case in which the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a reversal of a conviction based on insufficient evidence) and asserts that the jury's verdict was irrational and should be reversed.
State of Louisiana v. Jake C. Desoto La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
6/29/07), ___ So.2d ___, ___, that a reviewing court may impinge on the trier of fact’s discretion “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Desoto 968 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Ware 959 So. 2d 459 La. 2007
State v. Tabor 965 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Charles Hatch La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Weary, 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311; Neal, 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. Hatch 964 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Weary , 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311 ; Neal , 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. MacOn 957 So. 2d 1280 La. 2007
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Davis 958 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Rose 955 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Mervin Latigue La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Verret 960 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Allen 954 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
However, the touchstone 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. Washington 952 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Semien 948 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(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. Leroy Semien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(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. Dunbar 950 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Smith 952 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Price 952 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.1988).
State v. Love 947 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Rideau 947 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
See, e.g., State v. Brown, 03-0897 (La.4/12/05)