Cited by

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

180 citing documents.

State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 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.
State v. Harris 83 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court has made it clear that “the Jackson standard 5 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), (footnote added).
State v. Miller 84 So. 3d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[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, p. 4 (La.1/8/99), , writ denied, 01-3171 (La.9/30/02), .
State v. Hawkins 78 So. 3d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
*297 State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Douglas 80 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[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), (per curiam) (citation omitted).
State v. Jones 76 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Sims 75 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Juluke, 98-0341, p. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held: |9The Jackson standard does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative and inconsistent defenses in *484 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 c
State of Louisiana v. Draymond Paul Compton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The court held in pertinent part: Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson standard also does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative and 12 Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:11 states that “in the absence of qualifying provisions, the terms ‘intent’ and ‘intentional’
State of Louisiana v. Marcus W. Anderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The court held in pertinent part: Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson 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 de
State v. Compton 66 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The court held in pertinent part: Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson standard also does not provide a defendant with a means of splitting alternative andj^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 co
State v. Anderson 66 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The court held in pertinent part: Upon review, the supreme court [in State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), ], reversed the Fourth Circuit, noting: The Jackson 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 con
State v. SWANZY 61 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Juluke, 98-0341, p. 4 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Wright 61 So. 3d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“[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, p. 4 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Kelly 46 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Mazique 40 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1/8/99), , writ denied, 01-3171 (La.9/30/02), .
State v. Mott 30 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1/8/99), (per curiam) ("Given this limited purpose [of the Jackson review], the Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility determinations of the factfinder at trial.").
State v. Favors 28 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated, “the 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), (per curiam) (Citation omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Wilbert Batiste, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Batiste 5 So. 3d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Burnes 997 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
1/8/99) , the Louisiana Supreme Court wrote: The Jackson standard 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 su
State v. Noil 997 So. 2d 621 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Watson 993 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Edwards 988 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
The cases of State v. Conway, 01-2808 (La.04/12/02), , and State v. Robertson, 42,247 (La.App.2d Cir.06/25/07), , are both “alternate and inconsistent theories of defense” cases (a tactic prohibited in State v. Juluke, 98-0341(La.01/08/99), ).
State v. Decay 989 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
1/8/99), (per curiam); State v. Jones, 05-840, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Vincent 978 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Gaddis 973 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
[5] State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Harper 970 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Mussall, 523 So.2d at 1311 ("[T]he reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence."); State v. Juluke, 98-0341, p. 4 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam) ("Given this limited purpose [of the Jackson review], the Jackson standard does not serve as a vehicle for a reviewing court to second guess the rational credibility determinations of the factfinder at trial.").
State v. Ware 959 So. 2d 459 La. 2007
Cf. State v. Juluke, 98-2740, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), ("The Jackson standard .
State v. Robertson 958 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
The present claim, that DNA testing would establish that he was not the attacker, is an "alternative and inconsistent" theory of defense to the one he offered at trial, a tactic prohibited in State v. Juluke, 98-0341(La.01/08/99), [1] , as cited in State v. Conway, supra .
State v. Marshall 943 So. 2d 362 La. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Fowler 940 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.01/08/99), .
State v. Jupiter 934 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Lande 934 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[27] State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Smith 934 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Gordon 928 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[4] State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Roberson 929 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, XXXX-XXXX (La.01/08/99), ; State v. Bosley, 29,253 (La.App.2d Cir.04/02/97), , writ denied, 97-1203 (La.10/17/97), .
State of Louisiana v. J.F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
“[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. J.F. 927 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
“[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. Jones 927 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Davis 924 So. 2d 1096 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), (per curiam).
State v. Joseph 921 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Morris 917 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223 (La.App.
State v. Clark 909 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
[5] State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Brown 902 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Lai 902 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Guillard 902 So. 2d 1061 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ( per curiam ).
State v. McCloud 901 So. 2d 498 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Videau 900 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.
State v. Martin 895 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223 (La.App.
State v. McGee 894 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223, p. 6 (La.App.