98-K-2056 Precedential Processed

State v. Lamothe

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 25, 1998 · 722 So. 2d 987

Cited by

State Of Louisiana v. Terrence Michael Southall La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Dotie 1 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Watson 993 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Sims 973 So. 2d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Nguyen 924 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Becnel 904 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Storks 836 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Blount 806 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Vortisch 763 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Webber 742 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Curtis 739 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Lamothe 738 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999

all 13 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Hearold 603 So. 2d 731

Opinion text

722 So.2d 987 (1998) STATE of Louisiana v. Kirk LAMOTHE and Terence McNabb. No. 98-K-2056. Supreme Court of Louisiana. November 25, 1998. PER CURIAM. [*] Granted in part as to McNabb; denied to Lamothe. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the appellate court must consider all of the evidence introduced at trial, even evidence which the court admitted erroneously. State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731, 734 (La.1992). Accordingly, as to McNabb only, this case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider whether Lamothe's statement in addition to the other evidence presented at trial supported the jury's verdict. If the appellate court finds that the totality of the evidence presented satisfied the Jackson standard, it must determine whether the trial court erred in admitting Lamothe's statement against McNabb and, if so, whether the court's error requires reversal of his conviction or was harmless. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430 , 92 S.Ct. 1056, 1059 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) ("In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.") JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ. NOTES [*] Knoll, J., not on panel. See La. S.Ct. Rule IV, Part II, § 3.