DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Smith, 600 So. 2d 1319.

300 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. John Duncan La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    art. 821(B) provides that “[a] post verdict judgment of acquittal shall be granted only if the court finds that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.” 18 0682, p. 13, 186 So.3d at 780 ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cardell A. Hayes La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmie Dixon, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Wilbert D. Jefferson, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael R. Shorts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Garrett J. Ward La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” [at 1324] (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jkari Campbell La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    App. 4 Cir. 1/27/16), (“[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes 11 the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Darren Bridges La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Damond Scott La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Harrison J. Bethley La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Terrence Keith Wilson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Huckabay, 2000-1082, p.32, 809 So.2d at 1111 ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Troy Jordan La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    App. 4 Cir. 10/10/18), ( (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kentrell Hickerson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Alfred Jones, Jr La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. D. D. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
  • State Of Louisiana v. Jeremy James Griner La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
  • State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.P. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State v. Daniels 262 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 1324 (La.
  • State v. Baugh 262 So. 3d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 1324 (La.
  • State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 1324 (La.1992)."
  • State v. Carter 257 So. 3d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State ex rel. W.S. 250 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 1324 (La.
  • State v. Sandifer 249 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    State v. Smith , , 1324 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Corlious C. Dyson AKA Corlious Corall Dyson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • State v. Dyson 220 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Green 220 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State v. Luzzo 214 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Tedrick Jewan Richardson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Mussall, supra, at 1311.
  • State v. Jones 203 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Wells 203 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Jackson 193 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Dove 194 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the I ¡^weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    (erroneous jury instructions are subject to harmless, error analysis) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Lambert 191 So. 3d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A]- reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it,believes the witnesses or whether .the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A] reviewing, court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    “[A] reviewing court is' not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Smith
  • State v. Rumley 183 So. 3d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Powell 179 So. 3d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction' is contrary to the weight of the | evidence.”
  • State v. Davis 176 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. White 174 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it 15believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Bernard 171 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Thomas 171 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Hartford 162 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Miner 163 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324 (La.1992).
  • State v. Berniard 163 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Aguillard 158 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    But “[w]e have both the power and the obligation to review the record de novo to determine an error’s harmlessness.” , (La.1992); citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ellis 161 So. 3d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the Inweight of the evidence.” at 1324.