Cited by

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

1244 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Carlos Rios Cortes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Defendant argues that his statement during his police interview should not be considered because Officer Olivero did not specifically 4 “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 determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Cortes 84 So. 3d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
"When issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to *740 one or more trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Washington 86 So. 3d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Robinson 87 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State v. Chappell 83 So. 3d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED; MATTER REMANDED WITH ORDERS .Chappell’s
State v. Besse 83 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Cooks 81 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02), .
State v. Suggs 81 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. James Stubblefield La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Edward Lee Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“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 determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Marcantel, 2000-1629, p. 8 (La.4/3/02)
State of Louisiana v. Ramad Sereal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Adams 78 So. 3d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Douglas 80 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Roderick S. Bradley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Lobo 77 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Cummings 79 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jones 76 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Luke Matthew Bivens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
(c) Specific Intent “Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” (citations omitted).
State v. Bivens 74 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(c) Specific Intent “Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.” (citations omitted).
State v. Moton 73 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Dennis 72 So. 3d 968 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.
State v. Joseph 71 So. 3d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Richardson 71 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Ingram 71 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.
State v. Bobo 77 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
“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 determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Adams 68 So. 3d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[W]hen the entirety of the evidence, both admissible and inadmissible, is sufficient to support the conviction, the accused is not entitled to an acquittal.”
State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“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 determine the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Guillard, 04-899 (La.App.
State v. Flores 66 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Pettus 68 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State v. Harrison 69 So. 3d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
|1fi(La.l992); State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Heard 70 So. 3d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See also, State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , unit denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Simmons 67 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. R. K. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
A reviewing court may intrude on sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. R.K. 64 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
"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 determine the sufficiency of the *431 evidence.”
State of Louisiana v. Cederic D. Sereal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
the Louisiana Supreme Court explained, Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.
State of Louisiana v. Alex P. Papillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Papillion 63 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Wiley 68 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Kent Dale Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Simon 62 So. 3d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Paxton Jules Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Trahan 61 So. 3d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Peters 60 So. 3d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Turner 57 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Palmer 57 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .