Cited by

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

1244 citing documents.

State v. Patrick 721 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Adams, 30-815 (La.App.2d Cir.6/24/98), .
State v. Scott 720 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Hankton 719 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
State v. Self 719 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
we must address this assignment first.
State v. Perry 720 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
where the Court stated: “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.” See also State v. Monds, 91-0589 (La.App.
State v. President 715 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
held that when issues are raised on appeal relating to the sufficiency of the evidence and other trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine sufficiency.
State v. Branch 714 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Adams, 30,815 (La.App.2d Cir. 6/24/98), .
State v. Lamothe 715 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. MacK 715 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Adams 715 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Bullard, 29,662 (La.App.
State v. Butler 714 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Perkins 716 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
State v. Carter 713 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Dunn 709 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95)
State v. Johnson 706 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Barber 706 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Arnold 706 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir. 4/2/97), , writ denied 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State v. Spencer 707 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Evans, 29, 675(6) (La.App.2d Cir. 9/24/97), .
State v. Labostrie 702 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
However, -38 (La.1992), where the Court stated: 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. Sloan 701 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Evans 700 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Simpson 699 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Robinson 697 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Peterson 696 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
we will first address the defendants' claim concerning insufficient evidence.
State v. Bryant 694 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Kennerson 695 So. 2d 1367 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS 10 AND 11 we will first consider the defendant's tenth and eleventh assignments of error in which he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of two counts of simple burglary.
State v. Garner 694 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
our Supreme Court listed factors to determine the intent to distribute, and one of these factors is “whether the defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute the drag”.
State v. Wade 693 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Bosley 691 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
DISCUSSION Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict (Assignment Four) applying the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Styles 692 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
[3] where the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the appellate review procedure in cases where issues are raised on appeal both as to the sufficiency of the evidence and as to one or more trial errors.
State v. Taylor 688 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Gaines 688 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Monds, 91-0589 (La.App.
State v. Ingram 688 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95)
State v. Prince 688 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Hawkins 688 So. 2d 473 La. 1997
State v. Ard 686 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
he argues that no evidence of intent to distribute was presented since it was not shown that thirty-four tablets was an amount inconsistent with personal use.
State v. Smith 686 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Handley 686 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Cortez 687 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
we will first consider Ms. Cortez' fourth assignment of error in which she contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty of attempted cruelty to a juvenile.
State v. Warren 712 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95)
State v. Spikes 683 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Taylor 683 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
the Louisiana Supreme Court reasoned as follows: 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. Menard 688 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
see also, and State v. Thomas, 95-1646 (La.App.
State v. Armstrong 683 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
: 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. King 683 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Dugas 683 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
We address this argument first
State v. Walker 681 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Lassere 683 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Powell 677 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Ellis 677 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)