Cited by

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

128 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Troy Edward Delozier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Delozier 151 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Higgins, 03-1980, pp. 17-18 (La.4/1/05), ().
State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
This standard 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, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
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. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Higgins, 2003-1980, pp. 17-18 (La.4/1/05)
State of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Stevens 140 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It does not | fiallow 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. Daniel Joseph Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Rodney L. Johnson, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Johnson 140 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 821, 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. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
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. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Ernest R. Billiot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
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. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Magee 143 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Scott 136 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Higgins, 2003-1980, pp. 17-18 (La.4/1/05)
State of Louisiana v. Jamaal Cole Diggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Sidney John Handy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
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. Diggs 154 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Nellum 136 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Higgins, 03-1980, pp. 17-18 (La.4/1/05), ().
State v. Handy 154 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
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. Taylor 130 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Higgins, 03-1980, pp. 17-18 (La.4/1/05)
State of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Aaron Francois La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Kelvin Moses La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
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. Francois 114 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. James R Francis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Francis 111 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
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. Dexter Holder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Jeremiah R. Teno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Teno 101 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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. Holder 101 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Jackson standard of review does not allow the ap *1064 pellate 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. Jonathan L.citizen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State in the Interest of C.D. 93 So. 3d 1272 La. 2012
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. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Robertson, 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96)
State v. Greene 55 So. 3d 775 La. 2011
State v. Robertson, 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96)
State Ex Rel. Dw 47 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2010
(Per Curiam) (emphasis in original), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the state's case rests entirely on hearsay evidence, counsel's failure to object does not necessarily foreclose inquiry into the reliability of the result.