Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Green, 449 So. 2d 141.

19 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Kentrell Howard La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2026
State of Louisiana v. Perry L. Briley La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Alfred C. Simmons La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
evidence and provides “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” “Stated differently, the reviewer as a matter of law, can affirm the conviction only if the reasonable hypothesis is the one favorable to the state and there is no extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Gomila La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
at p. 7, 334 So.3d at 798 (internal quotations omitted) ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone Steele La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
at p. 7, 334 So.3d at 798 (internal quotations omitted) ( (La.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher M Alexander La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” “Stated differently, ‘[t]he reviewer as a matter of law, can affirm the conviction only if the reasonable hypothesis is the one 10 favorable to the state and there is no extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Mark L. Magee La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Elijah Mealancon La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
vidence and provides “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” “Stated differently, ‘the reviewer as a matter of law, can affirm the conviction only if the reasonable hypothesis is the one favorable to the state and there is no extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Dwight Washington La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
evidence and provides “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” “Stated differently, the reviewer as a matter of law, can affirm the conviction only if the reasonable hypothesis is the one favorable to the state and there is no extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Joshua Babineaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
ntioned statute pertaining to cruelty to a juvenile, refers to general criminal intent, present whenever there is specific intent and also when circumstances indicate that the offender, in the ordinary course of human experience, must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result from his act or failure to act.” (La.
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Louis Hayes, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Steven Russell Sedlock La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Sedlock 882 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Vance 879 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Cortez 687 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Morrison 582 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Williams 497 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Berkley 482 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986