Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731.

1245 citing documents.

State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that “[i]ntent is a condition of mind which is | ¿usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” The Court identified five factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
*854 the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the type of review to be used when issues are raised on appeal both as to sufficiency of the evidence and trial errors: When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first
State v. Jones 122 So. 3d 1065 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Cortez 122 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Walls, 47,006 (La.App.2d Cir.2/29/12), .
State v. Mercadel 120 So. 3d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Martin 121 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), () [emphasis added].
State v. Fields 120 So. 3d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Kenny 116 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Brown, 2008-1434, p. 8 (La.App.
State v. Florant 119 So. 3d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lampkin 119 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 119 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Alexander 119 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Alexander 118 So. 3d 1138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Johnny L. Eubanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
“Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” (citations omitted).
State v. Brown 115 So. 3d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
State v. Eubanks 112 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” (citations omitted).
State v. Cleveland 115 So. 3d 578 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Demarcus W. Law La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Law 110 So. 3d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Earl Steelman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Brady J. Harrington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
and State v. Kennerson, 96-1518 (La.App.
State v. Harrington 129 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
and State v. Kennerson, 96-1518 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Bryant Lakeith Bethley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
“When the entirety of the evidence, including inadmissible evidence which was erroneously admitted, is insufficient to support the conviction, the accused must be discharged as to that crime.”
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Wayne Dennis, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
we consider this assignment of error first.
State of Louisiana v. Bryant Lakeith Bethley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
“When the entirety of the evidence, including inadmissible evidence which was erroneously admitted, is insufficient to support the conviction, the accused must be discharged as to that crime.”
State of Louisiana v. Cedric Charles Edwards AKA Cederic C. Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Bethley 107 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“When the entirety of the evidence, including inadmissible evidence which was erroneously admitted, is insufficient to support the conviction, the accused must be discharged as to that crime.”
State v. Bethley 107 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“When the entirety of the evidence, including inadmissible evidence which was erroneously admitted, is insufficient to support the conviction, the accused must be discharged as to that crime.”
State v. Edwards 107 So. 3d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dennis 107 So. 3d 867 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
we consider this assignment of error first.
State v. Ferdinand 107 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hayes 108 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcantel, 00-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Boudoin 106 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Carter 106 So. 3d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Hearold, 90-2094 (La.1992), .
State v. Thompson 106 So. 3d 1102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Smith 106 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Further, that the combination of prior drug distribution and the amount of drugs found in the bag were sufficient to convict the defendant of possession with intent to distribute.
State of Louisiana v. Cleveland Troy Bias La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Evans, 29,675 (La.App.2d Cir.09/24/97), , writ denied, 97-2942 (La.01/09/98), .
State of Louisiana v. Ronald Lazaro La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 6/5/08), (), writ denied, 08-2000 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Brenda Gail Rains La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Lazaro 125 So. 3d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
3 Cir. 6/5/08) , (), writ denied, 08-2000 (La.4/3/09), .
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Rains 101 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 101 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Brooks 103 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Granger 103 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
this assignment of error will be addressed first because it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence Specifically, defendant takes issue with the testimony of various witnesses and their alleged factual inconsistencies.