Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Juluke, 725 So. 2d 1291.

180 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jamel M. Clark La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Bracken La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Mahlon R. Norton, III La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Nataja Shermaine Portalis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp.4-5 (La.1/8/99), -94 (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Reginald K. Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana Versus Shineda N. Taylor La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Jakorey Williams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State v. Thompson 259 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
State v. McBride 239 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Luzzo 214 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Castro 206 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
1/8/99), (per cu-riam), A defendant may not raise a new theory on appeal and demonstrate that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to negate the new theory.
State v. Batiste 208 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Clements 194 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 1/8/99), (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Dominique Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
art 821(E).” State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Jackson 179 So. 3d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art 821(E).” State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Hernandez 177 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2015
See also State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99); .
State v. Brown 173 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
5 Cir. 6/1/99), , writ denied, 99-1984 (La.1/7/00), ; State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Woodberry 171 So. 3d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Thomas 171 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Brenckle 170 So. 3d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See also State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Etienne 172 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -1294 (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Wayne G. Taylor A/K/A Wayne Taylor 166 So. 3d 988 La. 2015
State v. Aguillard 158 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Miller 160 So. 3d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4r-5 (La.1/8/99); (per cu-riam).
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Rouser 158 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
*866 State v. Juluke, 98-841 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam) (citation omitted).
State v. Alverez 158 So. 3d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
Jones v. Cain 151 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Stetson Gilliam La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -1294 (per curiam).
State v. Gilliam 149 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -1294 (per curiam).
State v. Briley 151 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Watson 147 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -1294 (per curiam).
State v. Vargas 138 So. 3d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
“[T]he Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a reviewing court to second-guess the rational credibility determinations of the fact finder at trial.” State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Laneheart 135 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Vessel 131 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Hamdan 131 So. 3d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -1294 (per curiam).
State v. Pierce 131 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State of Louisiana v. David A. Nelson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
1/8/99), ] and allow him the unfair advantage of urging a defense that the State had no reason to challenge.
State v. Pernell 127 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1/8/99), ("The Jaclcson standard also does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative and inconsistent defenses in different forums, raising one defense before the jury and when that fails, a second defense presupposing a different set of facts in an appellate court conducting sufficiency review under
State v. Edgar 140 So. 3d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), (citation omitted).
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Taylor 123 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Holmes 119 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[T]he Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility determinations of the fact finder at trial.” State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), , 1293 {per cu-riam ).
State v. Veal 116 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .” Here, Patricia Joseph, Aaron Clark, and Lavante Riley all identified Tyrone Biene-my as the man who stood with the gun in the hallway outside the victim’s bedroom.
State v. Ferdinand 107 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State of Louisiana v. Diondre D. Romero La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
“[T]he Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility determinations of the fact finder at trial.” State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Winston 100 So. 3d 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Molere 99 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Although such might rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel that could be raised in an application for post-conviction relief, we conclude that the error, if one exists in the context of this case and on the basis of the trial transcript, is either non-reversible error under State v. Juluke, 98-0841 (La.1/8/99), , or harmless error under La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .” In addition, the victim’s son identified the appellant as the man whom he saw hitting his mother in the head when he ran to the kitchen upon hearing his mother scream.