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. Jetton 756 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Monette 758 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Drummer 750 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Thomas 750 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Talley 748 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gipson 747 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    “[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. Perez 745 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Booth 745 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Trepagnier 744 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Long 744 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Robinson 744 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Ragas 744 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. McCormick 737 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    “[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. Guy 737 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Lewis 736 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Branch 737 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    “[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. Brady 727 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Richardson 729 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    State v. Scott, 709 So.2d at 341
  • State v. Nogess 729 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Baker 729 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Harge 730 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Bannister 726 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. DeSilva 726 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    “[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. Reeves 715 So. 2d 1291 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 ,|3 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Johnson 719 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Mussall; [State v.] Green [], “[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. Atkins 713 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Scott 709 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Egana 703 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Ortiz 701 So. 2d 922 La. 1997
    [15] a death sentence was imposed on the party who procured the services of another to construct an explosive device and affix it to the victim's car.
  • State v. Segure 700 So. 2d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    “[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. Gaines 688 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Lavalais 685 So. 2d 1048 La. 1996
    [11] However, a death sentence was imposed in a murder for hire case.
  • State v. Page 680 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Matthews 679 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Kimbrough 673 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Lilley 669 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967)
  • State v. Addison 665 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Green 660 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    “[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.
  • In the Interest of Nunez 657 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction |6in contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
  • State v. Jackson 654 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Cushenberry 650 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Sanders 648 So. 2d 1272 La. 1994
    708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); , 1326 n. 5 (La.1992).
  • State v. Camp 641 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Stowe 635 So. 2d 168 La. 1994
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (La.
  • State v. Corley 633 So. 2d 151 La. 1994
    see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Monds 631 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Grant 623 So. 2d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Tucker 619 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State Ex Rel. Taylor v. Whitley 606 So. 2d 1292 La. 1992
  • State v. Salone 605 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    NOTES [1] When assigned as error, improper jury instructions have been considered in the absence of a contemporaneous objection in capital cases, see, (La.