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. Hughes 943 So. 2d 1047 La. 2006
    Weary , 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311 ; Neal , 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
  • State v. Ordodi 946 So. 2d 654 La. 2006
    stone 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. Davis, XXXX-XXXX p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), , 558 (emphasis in original).
  • State v. Smith 946 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Clay 942 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Wayne Bell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Gauthier 941 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    See, e.g., State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05)
  • State v. Templet 943 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    art. 821(B); -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Leger 936 So. 2d 108 La. 2006
    Neal , XXXX-XXXX p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
  • State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
    Neal , XXXX-XXXX p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
  • State v. Caples 938 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Surratt and Cynthia Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Surratt 932 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Holmes 931 So. 2d 1157 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Spears 929 So. 2d 1219 La. 2006
  • State v. Cuccia 933 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • State v. Pigford 922 So. 2d 517 La. 2006
  • State v. Trackling 930 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    State *63 v. Mussall, [(]La.1988).
  • State v. Sosa 921 So. 2d 94 La. 2006
  • State v. Robinson 918 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Billy Ray Robinson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Junior Ray Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    “The actual trier of fact's rational credibility calls, evidence weighing and inference drawing are preserved through the requirement that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered as if by a rational fact finder in the light most favorable to the prosecution[.]”
  • State v. Fontenot 918 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    "The actual trier of fact's rational credibility calls, evidence weighing and inference drawing are preserved through the requirement that upon judicial review all of the evidence is to be considered as if by a rational fact finder in the light most favorable to the prosecution[.]"
  • State v. Bates 927 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    P. art. 821 B; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Ordodi 916 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    as a reviewing court should not second-guess the credibility determinations of the jury beyond the Jackson sufficiency evaluations, "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. Marlon Alexander La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Leslie Otto Ordodi La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    reviewing court should not second-guess the credibility determinations of the jury beyond the Jackson sufficiency evaluations, “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. Alexander 916 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    (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. Stone 904 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    [2] State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), ().
  • State v. Phillips 905 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • State v. Clark 904 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • State v. Young 902 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Wilson 900 So. 2d 287 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    (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. Michael Wayne Wilson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    (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. Higgins 898 So. 2d 1219 La. 2005
    at 15, 776 So.2d at 1143 (quoting Mussall, ).
  • State v. Maten 899 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    P. art. 821B; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Hughes 900 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • State v. Sykes 900 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
  • State of Louisiana v. Carey Louis Hood La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    (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. Lacoste 896 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
  • State v. Hood 895 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    (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. Montecino 906 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    P. art. 821(B); -09 (La.1988).
  • State of Louisiana v. Samuel Glenn Teague La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    s credibility determinations and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony; 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.” Sylvia, 01-1406 at p. 2-3, 845 So.2d at 361 ().
  • State v. Teague 893 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Sylvia , 01-1406 at p. 2-3, 845 So.2d at 361 ().
  • State v. Sosa 892 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    4/3/02), , (emphasis as found in the original).
  • State v. Jones 891 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Phillips 891 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “this court ...
  • State v. Nunnery 891 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “this court ...
  • State v. Major 888 So. 2d 798 La. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. William L. Giles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    (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. Giles 884 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    (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), ....