Cited by

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

1462 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Isiah Demon Lively 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. Nellum 136 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Handy 154 So. 3d 9 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. Lively 153 So. 3d 1061 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. German 133 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Taylor 130 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Khanh Le 131 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Harris, 02-1589 (La.5/20/03), ().
State v. Hamdan 131 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Smith 130 So. 3d 874 La. 2013
Thus, “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 of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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 v. Biddy 129 So. 3d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Allen 129 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Wardell Christopher Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. William King, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Tyrone Mitchell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
(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. Mitchell 125 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
(generally, one witness’s positive identification is sufficient to support the conviction); State v. Ford, 28,724 (La.App.
State v. King 124 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Ricky Lavelle Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 156 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Shelwin Markise Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
ionality 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, 2002-1043 p. 2-3 (La.6/27/03), (emphasis in original).
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Weldon Thompson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
“[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. Thompson 123 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[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.” (emphasis in original).
State v. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dussett 126 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Barnes 126 So. 3d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Winston, 11-1342, pp. 7-8 (La.App.
State v. Quinn 123 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Peters 123 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor 123 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Eric John Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Weary, 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311; Neal, 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. Anderson 116 So. 3d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Weary , 03-3067 at p. 18, 931 So.2d at 311 ; Neal , 00-0674 at p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Aaron Francois La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Francois 114 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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 v. Spells 116 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Church 114 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Anton Chehardy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State v. Chehardy 157 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
State of Louisiana v. Johnny L. Eubanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
This Court‟s function is not to determine whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence, but instead to “assure that the jurors did not speculate where the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Brown 115 So. 3d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013