Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lubrano, 563 So. 2d 847.

128 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Gerald Manchip White La. 2025
State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.J. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Trevor A. Matthews La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State v. Robertson, 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96)
State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.R. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Marshall J. Alexander, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.N. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
However, as a matter of due process, the court of appeal erred in losing sight of the basic principle on review that the rational fact finder test of Jackson v. Virginia, “does not permit a reviewing court to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the [fact finder].” (citing State ex rel.
State of Louisiana v. Hugh Gilliam La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Bruce L. Lachney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Victor Luis Avila Ramos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
10/4/96), State v. 4 Lubrano, ).
State Of Louisiana v. Walter Perell Fisher, Jr. La. 2021
Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure, Criminal 2d, § 467, at 660- 661 & n. 23) ; (La.
Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
However, as a matter of due process, the court of appeal erred in losing sight of the basic principle on review that the rational fact finder test of Jackson v. Virginia, “does not permit a reviewing court to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the [fact finder].” (citing State ex rel.
Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
However, as a matter of due process, the court of appeal erred in losing sight of the basic principle on review that the rational fact finder test of Jackson v. Virginia, “does not permit a reviewing court to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the [fact finder].” (citing State ex rel.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher Michael Vaccaro La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Elizabeth Trahan A/K/A Elizebeth Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Brian L. Pope La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Michael Jerome Cochran A/K/A Michael Jerome Cochran, Jr. A/K/A Michael Cochran La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Randall Paul Burton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Wayne Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Ladray Bias, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Ralph Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Bias 265 So. 3d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/4/96), ; State v. Lubrano , ).
State v. Johnson 265 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/4/96), , and State v. Lubrano , ).
State v. Henry 256 So. 3d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/4/96), ; State v. Lubrano , , 850 (La.1990) ).
State of Louisiana v. Kade Starbuck Henry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Smith 237 So. 3d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Lubrano , , 850 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph McKinley Guillory AKA Joseph Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Guillory 229 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Chadwick McGhee 223 So. 3d 1136 La. 2017
Although a jury may not speculate “if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have reasonable doubt,” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), the state here presented sufficient evidence, which when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution under the due process standard of Jackson v. Virginia, to establish that the defendant aided and abetted in the kidnapping of the victim.
State of Louisiana v. Gary D. Howard 226 So. 3d 419 La. 2017
1 When applied to a case involving circumstantial evidence, such as this, the Jackson standard requires an appellate court to determine whether viewing the 1 For example, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher O. James La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Stormy Nicole Cofer AKA Stormy Cofer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Cofer 216 So. 3d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. James 216 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire 269 So. 3d 698 La. 2016
Motive is not an essential element of murder, but “a lack of motive may properly be considered as a 6 Although a jury may not speculate “if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have reasonable doubt,” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact- finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Robertson 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), ; , 850-(La., 1990): A reviewing court may intervene in the trier of fact’s decision only to the extent necessary to guarantee due process of law.
State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
State v. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Wayne G. Taylor A/K/A Wayne Taylor 166 So. 3d 988 La. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Brian Lowell Frazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Frazier 157 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that |7of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), 680 Sb.2d 1165; ).