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. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy 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. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st 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. Powell 179 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Berard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    “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[.]” (footnotes omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross 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. Hernandez 177 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2015
    State v. Williams, 98-1146 (La.
  • State v. Davis 176 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Lee 181 So. 3d 631 La. 2015
  • State v. Alexander 182 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 821(B); -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. White 174 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Willie James Robertson 172 So. 3d 616 La. 2015
    Nevertheless, the Jackson standard does «not permit 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 at 660-61 and n. 23 (2d ed. 1982).
  • State v. Allen 174 So. 3d 1163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Brenckle 170 So. 3d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Williams, 98-1146 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff 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. Glyndale Arceneaux 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. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st 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. Arceneaux 164 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st 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. Etienne 172 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Lemoine 174 So. 3d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See also State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Charles 171 So. 3d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 821 B; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Daigle 167 So. 3d 980 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Carter 167 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 821B; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Hartford 162 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    see also State v. Peters, 12-1641, p. 16 (La.App.
  • State v. Miner 163 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Shepherd 166 So. 3d 1041 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Gorman 166 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
  • State of Louisiana v. D'Andre Jamal Senegal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. Brian Lowell Frazier 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. Frazier 157 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Our supreme court has stated: *1272 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. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Ancalade 158 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State of Louisiana v. James Craig Johnson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Handy 156 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Johnson 155 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Canales 156 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Alexis 157 So. 3d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    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. Watts 168 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 821 B; -09 (La.1988).
  • State v. Ramirez 154 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Cameron 152 So. 3d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    Our supreme court has stated: 2 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. Winzer 151 So. 3d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Our supreme court has stated: |,.¡However, an appellate court may impinge on the fact finders 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. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    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.”