Cited by

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

1462 citing documents.

State v. Adams 884 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Corey Marquee Adams, Whitney Batiste, and Horatio Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.App.
State v. Lewis 885 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Wischer 885 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Picard 897 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
P. art. 821; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Corkern 897 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Hart 881 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Newman 879 So. 2d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “this court ...
State v. Vance 879 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Hebert 877 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Legrand, 02-1462, p. 8 (La.12/3/02), ().
State v. Williams 878 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
(footnotes omitted), in support of his argument: 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 f
State v. Hall 875 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Onstead 875 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[7] State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), , ().
State v. Allen 876 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated *127 that "this court ...
State v. Spivey 874 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Bertrand 874 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Wiley 880 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
[10] State v. Mercantel, 00-1629, p. 9 (La.4/3/02), ( (1988)).
State v. Taylor 874 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
"The reviewing court is not permitted `to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.'" State v. Marcantel, 00-1629 (La.4/3/02), ().
State v. Johnson 870 So. 2d 995 La. 2004
Sylvia , 01-1406 at p. 2-3, 845 So.2d at 361 ().
State v. Genter 872 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Landry 871 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Pierre 869 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Goldston 868 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Legrand 864 So. 2d 89 La. 2004
State v. Volgamore 865 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Hartwell 866 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03), , citing
State v. Ferrand 866 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Brian Keith Poullard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and may, within the bounds of rationality, accept or reject the testimony of any witness; thus, a reviewing court may impinge upon the fact finder’s discretion “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.”
State v. Poullard 863 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State of Louisiana v. Scott Allen Cooper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), preserves the role of the jury as the factfinder in the case but it does not allow jurors “‘to speculate if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.’” [quoting 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure, Criminal 2d § 467 (2d ed. 1982) ]
State v. Cooper 862 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), preserves the role of the jury as the factfinder in the case but it does not allow jurors "`to speculate if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.'" [quoting 2A C. Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure, Criminal 2d § 467 (2d ed.1982) ]
State v. Fielding 862 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Lagarde 861 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Johnson 864 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Boatner 861 So. 2d 149 La. 2003
State v. Wallace 862 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. LeBlanc 862 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Williams 868 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
art. 821 B.; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Matthews 859 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
(quoting 2 Charles Wright, Federal Practice Procedure, Criminal 2d, 467 (2d ed.1982)).
State v. Ceasar 856 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Toups 859 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Lebreton 859 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Davis 848 So. 2d 557 La. 2003
(" [I]rrational 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.")(footnote omitted).
State v. Gipson 850 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Enclard 850 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Brown 846 So. 2d 715 La. 2003
State v. Harris 846 So. 2d 709 La. 2003
State v. Tate 851 So. 2d 921 La. 2003
State v. Barnes 847 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State *79 v. Jones, 36,553 (La.App.2d Cir.01/29/03), .
State v. Jackson 846 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003