DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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 v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 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. Alverez 158 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Handy 156 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Canales 156 So. 3d 1183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Ramirez 154 So. 3d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Jacques 157 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Jasper 149 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Lewis 147 So. 3d 1251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Watkins 146 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. 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 require the reviewing court to determine whether it believes the witnesses or whether it believes that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the factfinder is given much discretio
  • State v. Celestain 146 So. 3d 874 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Wells 156 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    (“To say the evidence is of minimal constitutional sufficiency, however, is not to say the erroneous instruction is unimportant in relation to it.”) (La.App.
  • State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Quezada 141 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Haynes 144 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Weathersby 140 So. 3d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[Ajreviewing 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. Scott 136 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[Ajreviewing 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. Laneheart 135 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Nellum 136 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. German 133 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[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. Vessel 131 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the *526 weight of the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Coleman 133 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Taylor 130 So. 3d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Hamdan 131 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    But “[w]e have both the power and the obligation to review the record de novo to determine an error’s harmlessness.” citing to Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Pierce 131 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Biddy 129 So. 3d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Allen 129 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Vargas-Alcerreca 126 So. 3d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Peters 123 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[A] re *1059 viewing 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. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Santos-Castro 120 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Byrd 119 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Specifically, “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,” and the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a conviction.
  • State v. Spells 116 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Labat 115 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Brown 115 So. 3d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. Curtis 112 So. 3d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Clements 112 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[A] re-vievfing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the vfitnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Krodinger 128 So. 3d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Johnson 109 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “[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. McNair 107 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide wheth *813 er it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” at 1324.
  • State v. Thomas 106 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “[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. Sipp 104 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “[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. Williams 107 So. 3d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Sylvia, 01-1406 (La.4/9/03)