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. Hobley, 752 So. 2d 771.

74 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Stacey Glenn Wilhite La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    12/15/99), quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F. 3d 320, 344 (6th Cir. 1998), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Westly X. Freeman La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • State of Louisiana v. James Anthony Santos La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
    12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F. 3d 320, 344 (6th Cir. 1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Derrick Ryan Small La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Isame Henry Faciane A/K/A Isame Faciance La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    See State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99)
  • State v. Aguliar-Benitez 260 So. 3d 1247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    12/15/99), , 788 (citing Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039 , 1044, 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Jefferson 261 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    12/15/99), , 787-89, cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Thayer Green 225 So. 3d 1033 La. 2017
    12/8/99), (“There is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.”) (quoting Coe v.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kennon Richard AKA Kennan Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    12/15/99), ]; Purkett [v. Elem,] 514 U.S. [765] at 767, 115 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher O. James La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    12/15/99), ]; Purkett [v. Elem,] 514 U.S. [765] at 767, 115 S.Ct.
  • State v. Richard 216 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    12/15/99), ]; Purkett [v. Elem,] 514 U.S. [765] at 767, 115 S.Ct.
  • State v. James 216 So. 3d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    12/15/99), ]; Purkett [v. Elem,] 514 U.S. [765] at 767, 115 S.Ct.
  • State v. Luzzo 214 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State v. Johnson 229 So. 3d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Broussard, Jr. AKA Larry James Broussard Jr. AKA Larry J. Broussard Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State v. Broussard 201 So. 3d 400 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Wells 191 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    See State v. Harper, 10-0356, p. 11 (La.11/30/10), (citing State v. Kenner, 05-1052) p. 2 (La.12/16/05), ; State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25, n. 10 (La.12/15/99), ).
  • State v. Ferguson 181 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Hobley, 98- *133 2460 (La.12/15/99), , cert denied, 531 U.S. 839 , 121 S.Ct.
  • State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Williams 137 So. 3d 832 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Under the Brady rule, there is no violation “where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), .
  • State v. Dominick 129 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Stated otherwise, “[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (citing Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320 (6th Cir.1998)).
  • State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    ‘“There is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.’ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 820, 844 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Eldridge Tezano, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    It follows, therefore, “ „[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‟ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Johnny L. Eubanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    There is sufficient evidence for conviction if the appellate court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98–2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), cert.
  • State v. Eubanks 112 So. 3d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    There is sufficient evidence for conviction if the appellate court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Sean Bernard Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    It follows, therefore, ― ‗[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‘ ‖ State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Nina Lambert Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    It follows, therefore, ― ‗[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‘ ‖ State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    It follows, therefore, “ ‘[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.’ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    It follows, therefore, “ ‘[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.’ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State v. Pollard 106 So. 3d 1194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 643; State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Triston T. Lyons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    It follows, therefore, “ „[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‟ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Demarcus Fobb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    There is sufficient evidence for conviction if this court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), cert.
  • State v. Fobb 91 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    There is sufficient evidence for conviction if this court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Dalcourt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    It follows, therefore, ― ‗[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.‘‖ State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir.1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. David F. Pittman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Pittman 85 So. 3d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    STANDARD OF REVIEW There is sufficient evidence for conviction if the appellate court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State v. Seals 83 So. 3d 285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Hobley, 98-2460, pp. 19-20 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Luke Matthew Bivens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Bivens 74 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    (1) Sufficiency of Evidence There is sufficient evidence for conviction if the appellate court determines that “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State v. Dorsey 74 So. 3d 603 La. 2011
    98-2460, pp. 8-9 (La.12/15/99); .
  • State v. Harper 53 So. 3d 1263 La. 2010
    It follows, therefore, “ ‘[t]here is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.’ ” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 25 n. 10 (La.12/15/99), (quoting Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir. 1998)), cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Jude Gilbert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Gilbert 41 So. 3d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Freeman 34 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Brown, supra; State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99), .
  • State v. Hyman 33 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has found " ‘[tjhere is no Brady violation where a defendant knew or should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory information, or where the evidence is available from another source, because in such cases there is really nothing for the government to disclose.’ ” State v. Hobley, 99-3343, p. 25, n. 10 (La.12/8/99), , cert.
  • Donald R. Alexander v. Ira M. Tate La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • Alexander v. Tate 30 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    826 , 151 L.Ed.2d 707 (2002); State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99), , cert.
  • State of Louisiana v. Kendrick Scott La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires an appellate court to determine whether “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99)
  • State v. Scott 26 So. 3d 313 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), requires an appellate court to determine whether “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hobley, 98-2460, p. 33 (La.12/15/99); .
  • State v. Williams 965 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    Regarding requests for counsel, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Hobley, 98-2460 (La.12/15/99), , cert.