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. Hearold, 603 So. 2d 731.

1244 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson 750 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Rollins 749 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Beason, 26,725 (La.App.2d Cir.04/07/95), , writ denied, 95-1388 (La.10/27/95), .
  • State v. Fuller 759 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Ball 748 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Williams 747 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rose 750 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    DISCUSSION Assignment of error number 3: the supreme court held that, when issues of both sufficiency of the evidence and trial errors are raised on appeal, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State v. Crosby 748 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    -36 (La.1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.
  • State v. Gaspard 746 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Blackwell 746 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Plaisance 745 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Louis 744 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    *700 State v. Adams, 30,815 (La.App.2d Cir.6/24/98), , writ denied, 98-2031 (La.3/19/99), .
  • State v. Donald 745 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    With trial error involving the admissibility of evidence, has provided: “[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, and the reviewing court must then consider the assignments of trial error to determine whether the accused is entitled to a new tria
  • State v. Thomas 745 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Poland 750 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97)
  • State v. Broadway 753 So. 2d 801 La. 1999
  • State v. Brown 746 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Pratt 748 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), .
  • State v. Caldwell 742 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Evans, 29,675 (La.App.
  • State v. Mamon 743 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court listed five factors, that are helpful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: (1) whether the defendant ever distributed
  • State v. Hollins 742 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    -736 (La.1992); State v. Lassere, 95-1009 (La.App.
  • State v. Durham 748 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Watson 743 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
  • State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 747 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Adams, 30,815 (La.
  • State v. Patterson 742 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    (citing Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. Raby 738 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    -38 (La.1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court added: Generally, an explanation of the officer's actions should never be an acceptable basis upon which to admit an out-of-court declaration when the so-called "explanation" involves a direct assertion of criminal activity against the accused...
  • State v. Ste. Marie 741 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    However, , this evidence, admissible or inadmissible, should be considered in determining the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State v. Alexis 738 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    State v. Lamothe, 98-2056 (La.11/25/98)
  • State v. Pickrom 732 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bullard, 29,662 (La.App.
  • State v. Smith 740 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bullard, 29,662 (La.App.2d Cir.9/24/97), .
  • State v. Kunzman 741 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    *116 State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), .
  • State v. Jones 741 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that mere possession of a drug does not amount to evidence of intent to distribute unless that quantity is so large that no other inference is possible.
  • State v. Dyson 734 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Jones 733 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rice 736 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    A defendant "may move for a post verdict judgment of acquittal following the verdict."
  • State v. Davis 732 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.4/2/97), .
  • State v. Mickens 731 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Evans, 29,675 (La.App.
  • State v. Richardson 729 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    State v. Atkins, 97-1278 (La.App.
  • State v. Martin 730 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    the Louisiana Supreme Court provided factors which are useful in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance: These factors include (1) whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drug; (2) whethe
  • State v. Harge 730 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Ash 729 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Bernard 734 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Jackson 726 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95)
  • State v. Juluke 725 So. 2d 1291 La. 1999
    ("[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, and the reviewing court must then consider the assignments of trial error to determine whether the accused is entitled to a new trial.").
  • State v. Inzina 728 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95)
  • State v. Sciortino 724 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Lamothe 722 So. 2d 987 La. 1998
  • State v. Adkins 721 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Evans, 29,675 (La.App.
  • State v. Willis 721 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998