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. Lavigne 675 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Brunet 674 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Our analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence, (La.
  • State v. Bolden 680 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Robertson 672 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    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. Shaw 672 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    State v. Huff, 27,212 (La.App.
  • State v. Reddick 670 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • State v. Hampton 670 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Lilley 669 So. 2d 1363 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that when issues are raised on appeal both as to sufficiency of the evidence and trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State in Interest of AH 670 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Guy 669 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    -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. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Mills 665 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Explained State v. George 661 So. 2d 975 La. 1995
    we explained: 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. Taylor 662 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    -36 (La.1992), the Court discussed the factors which may be used to prove intent through circumstantial evidence: Intent is a condition of mind which is usually proved by evidence of circumstances from which intent may be inferred.
  • State v. Willars 661 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
  • State v. Hawkins 667 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Huff 660 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Williams 658 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Beason 653 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Banford 653 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Rubin 649 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    : Sufficiency of the Evidence 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. Cushenberry 650 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    In support of his argument
  • State v. Soraparu 649 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Although this court has held as above, significantly limited the admissible testimony police officers may give to explain actions taken during investigations.
  • State v. Smith 649 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Duncan 648 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Foster 647 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Shaw 645 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Gordon 646 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Gordon 646 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Fairley 645 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Harris 645 So. 2d 224 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Mayeux 639 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Fowlkes 634 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State in Interest of KW 632 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Monds 631 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Bosworth 629 So. 2d 1332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    Double Jeopardy Although not stated in the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion
  • State v. Fisher 628 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Hall 624 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Preston 623 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Johnson 621 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    In support of his argument that the evidence was insufficient
  • State v. Tucker 619 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that when issues are raised on appeal both as to sufficiency of the evidence and trial errors, the reviewing court should first determine the sufficiency of the evidence.
  • State v. Bonck 613 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    involved admission of hearsay evidence and the effect of that admission on the sufficiency of the evidence of intent [to distribute drugs].
  • State v. Tong 609 So. 2d 822 La. 1992
  • State v. Butler 609 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s supports defendant’s arguments that he was prejudiced by testimony regarding the substance of the informant’s tip.