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. Williams, 580 So. 2d 448.

17 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Demetrius D. Nash La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Nash 112 So. 3d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Kennedy 73 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Moses 806 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    4th Cir.1991) (direct evidence); (La.App.
  • State v. Davis 786 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Howard 786 So. 2d 174 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Kendrick 699 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    671 and 674; *433 (La.App.
  • State v. Finley 664 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    15:529.1(0 prohibits the use of a conviction where more than five years have elapsed between the expiration of the maximum sentence on the prior conviction and the commission of the present offense.” When read in connection with facts discussed in the court’s earlier opinion in the same case, (La.App.
  • State v. Webster 664 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    When read in connection with facts discussed in the court's earlier opinion in the same case, (La.App.
  • State v. Corvers 646 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Kent, supra ; (La.App.
  • State v. Gaines 639 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    When read in connection with facts discussed in the court's earlier opinion in the same case, (La.App.
  • State v. Richardson 637 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Gamberella 633 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Kent 610 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); (5th Cir.1991).
  • State v. Williams 609 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Williams 598 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    App. 4th Cir.1991) (direct evidence); (La.App.
  • State v. Johnson 592 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    (5th Cir. 1991) in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard to be used by the appellate court is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime charged