Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jenkins, 63 So. 869.

13 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Joenell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Further, “[t]he test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is not whether it produces the same conviction as the positive testimony of an eyewitness, but whether it produces moral conviction such as would exclude every reasonable doubt.” ( So.
State v. Rubin 211 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Further, “[t]he test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is not whether it produces the same conviction as the positive testimony of an eyewitness, but whether it produces moral conviction such as would exclude every reasonable doubt.” ( , 63 So.
State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire 269 So. 3d 698 La. 2016
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In that case, the court stated that the evidence “must not only be sufficient to convict the defendant, but, in testing its sufficiency, it *1012 must exclude 11Bthe [reasonable] hypothesis that somebody else committed the offense.” Id., 431 So.2d at 385 ( , 63 So.
State v. Hampton 687 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Mosby 595 So. 2d 1135 La. 1992
Counsel for defendant acknowledged this difference in the cases, , 63 So.
State v. Harrison 560 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Obney 505 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Jenkins, [ ], 63 So.
State v. Patch 470 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Shapiro 431 So. 2d 372 La. 1983
State v. Ludwig 423 So. 2d 1073 La. 1982
State v. Birdsell 95 So. 2d 290 La. 1957
State v. Mizell 22 So. 2d 827 La. 1945
“As given, we have not found that it was objectionable.” , 63 So.