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. Cushenberry, 650 So. 2d 783.

19 citing documents.

  • State v. Campbell 171 So. 3d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Rapp 161 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Williams 97 So. 3d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this court noted that the Hearold factors were “enunciated as ‘useful’ in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute,” but this court held that evidence need not “fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that requisite intent
  • State ex rel. G.E. 94 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State v. Simmons 67 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this court noted that the Hearold factors were “enunciated as ‘useful’ in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute,” but this court held that the evidence need not “fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find the requisite inte
  • State of Louisiana v. Cederic D. Sereal La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State ex rel. J.L. 23 So. 3d 993 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , 786: In affirming defendant’s conviction, we first note that the Court in Hearold refers to the factors enunciated as “useful” in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute.
  • State v. Duncan 15 So. 3d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    4th Cir.1/31/95), , this Court described the Hearold factors as ‘useful’ but held that the evidence need not ‘fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find the requisite intent to distribute.’ ” Howard, at pp. 22-23, 805 So.2d at 1261 -1262 (quoting State v. Cushenberry, 94-1206, p. 6, 650 So.2d
  • State v. Mosley 13 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Davis 958 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    App. 4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this Court explained Hearold : In affirming defendant's conviction, we first note that the Court in Hearold refers to the factors enunciated as "useful" in determining whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent to distribute.
  • State v. Hall 843 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this Court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Howard 805 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    4th Cir.1/31/95), , this court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Johnson 780 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    4 Cir. 1/31/95); , this court described the Hearold factors as “useful” but held that the evidence need not “fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute.” In the present case, Detective Loh-man testified that he was in charge of the investigation of the
  • State v. Johnson 766 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    4 Cir. 1/31/95); , this court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Crosby 748 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Martin 730 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    App. 4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Ash 729 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    4 Cir. 1/31/95), , this court described the Hearold factors as "useful" but held that the evidence need not "fall squarely within the factors enunciated to be sufficient for the jury to find that the requisite intent to distribute."
  • State v. Perry 720 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    4th Cir. 1/31/95), , the defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute twenty-six rocks of cocaine was upheld.
  • State v. Taylor 662 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    4th Cir. 1/31/95), , we found the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute where the defendant had been standing outside a store drinking a beer.