Cited by

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

180 citing documents.

State v. Powell 783 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Ellwood 783 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Also, in State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held: The rational fact finder standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Brooks 777 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Juluke, 98 0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Harris 782 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
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. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In State v. Juluke, 98-0341, p. 5 (La.1/8/99), , the Louisiana Supreme Court further discussed the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: In a case involving circumstantial evidence in which the jury has reasonably rejected the defense offered at trial, the reviewing court therefore "does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been sugge
State v. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
See State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99); .
State v. Cazenave 772 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Dickerson 772 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Jones 772 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
See also, State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), -1293 ; State v. Holmes, 98 -490 (La.App.
State v. Brooks 769 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
[11] State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99) .
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
See also, State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), -1293 ; State v. Holmes, 98 -490 (La.App.
State v. Washington 769 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
See also, State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), -1293 ; State v. Holmes, 98 -490 (La.App.
State v. Jones 767 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 99-223 (La.App.
State v. Arwood 762 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
“[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. Lewis 764 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Vortisch 763 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
See also, State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), -1293 ; State v. Holmes, 98 -490 (La.App.
State v. Armstrong 756 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. Williams, 98-1146 (La.App.
State v. Duvall 747 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In State v. Juluke, 98-0341, pp. 4-5 (La.1/8/99), -94 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently clarified the appellate courts’ duty in conducting sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
State v. Brooks 755 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
In State v. Juluke, 98-341, p. 5 (La.1/8/99); (), the supreme court explained: "In a case involving circumstantial evidence in which the jury has reasonably rejected the defense offered at trial, the reviewing court therefore `does not determine whether another possible hypothesis has been suggested by
State v. Carthan 765 So. 2d 357 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.'" State v. Juluke, 98-341, p. 4 (La.1/8/99); ( (alteration in original)).
State v. McKinney 749 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
[12] State v. Juluke, 98-341, p. 4 (La.1/8/99), ; State v. McPherson, 733 So.2d at 637 .
State v. Hotoph 750 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), .
State v. Gaspard 746 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.'" State v. Juluke, 98-341, p. 4 (La.1/8/99); (citation omitted).
State v. Mayer 743 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Ditcharo 739 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
See also; State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99)
State v. Williams 738 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), , 1999 WL 21252 .
State v. Cordero 738 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Juluke, 98-0341 (La.1/8/99), 1999 WL 21252 , .
State v. Fauchetta 738 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Juluke, 98-341 (La.1/8/99), , 1999 WL 21252, *3 , citing State ex rel.
State v. Dixon 732 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999