Cited by

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

1462 citing documents.

State v. White 206 So. 3d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
The 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 protection of due process of law.”
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The 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 protection of due process of law.”
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
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. Jones 203 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Larry Broussard, Jr. AKA Larry James Broussard Jr. AKA Larry J, Broussard Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Harris, 02-1589, p. 4 (La.5/20/03)
State of Louisiana v. Stoney J. Lapoint La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
An appellate court may, however, 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 protection of due process of law.”
State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
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. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
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. Broussard 202 So. 3d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Lapoint 202 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
An appellate court may, however, 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 protection of due process of law.”
State v. Flowers 204 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
11/29/06), , -09 (La.1988).
State v. Gardner 204 So. 3d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821B; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Toliver 205 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art, 821B; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Hayes 204 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821B; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Caminita 203 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Wells 203 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State ex rel. J.J. 196 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821(B); 4 State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Debbie E. Adams AKA Debbie Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
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 protection of due process of law.”
State v. Dove 194 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
However, the reviewing court may not disregard this duty’ simply because the record contains evidence that tends to support each fact necessary to constitute the crime
State v. Clements 194 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(“If the court finds that no rational trier of fact viewing all of the evidence from a rational pro-prosecution standpoint could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction cannot stand constitutionally.”).
State v. Serigne 193 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The requirement that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution obliges the reviewing court to defer to “[t]he actual trier of fact’s rational credibility calls, evidence weighing and inference drawing.”
State v. Skinner 191 So. 3d 676 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. McKinney 194 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821 B; State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Everette 192 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Bland 194 So. 3d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Murphy 194 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Cotton 194 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State of Louisiana v. Mark Wayne Thibodeaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Thibodeaux 190 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Hartman 189 So. 3d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State of Louisiana v. William Shupp La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
tently held that the premise 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 21 will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.‖
State of Louisiana v. Dwane Edward Fox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Shupp 185 So. 3d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
*915 Louisiana jurisprudence has consistently held that the premise 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. Fox 184 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Johnson 187 So. 3d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire 269 So. 3d 698 La. 2016
disavowal of these potential motives within the confines of due process, which allows the trier of fact to make credibility determinations, within the bounds of rationality, and accept or reject the testimony of any witness; and 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.” (La.
State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Love 185 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Wallace 185 So. 3d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Johnson 185 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
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. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
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. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015