Cited by

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

1462 citing documents.

State v. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st 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.”
State v. Johnson 151 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
: 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. Jasper 149 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Lewis 147 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Small 147 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Mr. Small notes that our decision in Wood-fork heavily-relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s and that Mussall is sui gener-is, "distinguished by its truly bizarre facts.” State in the Interest of C.D., 11-1701, p. 6 (La.7/2/12), .
State v. Watson 147 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Henry 147 So. 3d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Although we consider the record as a whole, this court cannot be “called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” | ^ see also State v. Spears, 05-0964, p. 3 (La.4/4/06), (constitutional law does not requir
State v. Celestain 146 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
On appellate review, the trier of fact is called upon to make certain factual findings, whose “discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” Id., 12-2358, p. 7, 130 So.3d at 878 ().
State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Wells 156 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Wallace 143 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Tony Jackson, AKA Leoanrdo Jackson, AKA Leon Jackson, AKA Leonardo Marice Jackson, AKA Leonard … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
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. Jackson 146 So. 3d 631 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Jon Dickerson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Joseph Harmon 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.”
State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price 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.”
State of Louisiana v. Wilford B. Vangure AKA Wilfred Vangure AKA Wilfred B. Vangure La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
“[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.” (emphasis in original).
State v. Dickerson 140 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
[[Image here]] “[Ijrrational 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.” (emphasis in original).
State v. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st 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.”
State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st 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.”
State v. Quezada 141 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Smith 141 So. 3d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); -09 (La.1988); State v. Pleasant, 10-1533, pp. 5-6 (La.App.
State v. Price 140 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite 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.”
State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st 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.”
State v. Adams 139 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. T.W. 141 So. 3d 822 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Tony Garnell Pennywell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)
State of Louisiana v. Ernest R. Billiot 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.”
State of Louisiana v. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard 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 2 law.‖
State v. Pennywell 139 So. 3d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)
State v. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Mack 144 So. 3d 983 La. 2014
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Hankton 140 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 9/26/12), , writ denied, 12-2252 (La.4/1/13)
State v. Weathersby 140 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Toups 144 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State in the Interest of E. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Weary, 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311; Neal, 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State ex rel. E.T. 136 So. 3d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Weary , 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311 ; Neal , 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. Cobb 144 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 06-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.
State v. Magee 143 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
P. art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State v. Gregoire 143 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State of Louisiana v. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d 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.‖ (La.
State v. Scott 136 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Oliphant 133 So. 3d 1255 La. 2014
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental due process of law.”
State v. Huey 142 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 821(B); State v. Ordodi, 2006-0207 (La.11/29/06), ; -09 (La.1988).
State of Louisiana v. Sidney John Handy 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.”