Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Griffin, 159 So. 3d 1066.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Desmond Deondre Scarborough La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Larry J. Cooper, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
2/27/15), ]; State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Fillmore Wright La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. A. L. Simmons, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Justin Dewayne Kimble La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Austin William Bost La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Ronald Watson and Stephen Watson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Kelby Meaux A/K/A Kelby D. Meaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Willie R. Sanders, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Trevonte Lamarque Talbert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Aljermon Henderson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
2/27/15), involved a fifty-year sentence, fifteen of which were to be served without benefits, imposed on a forty-six-year-old defendant who had a lengthy juvenile record and was considered to be a third-felony, adult offender.
State of Louisiana v. Orlando Demond Morris Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Gerald Samuel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Jamal Christopher Lacon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
2/27/15), (fourth alteration in original).
State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
2/27/15), (fourth alteration in original).
State of Louisiana v. David Javon Arceneaux AKA David Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Will Antonio Celestine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State v. Tutson 270 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
2/27/15), ; State v. Soriano , 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Michael Ja'rel Tutson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
2/27/15), State v. Soriano, 15-1006 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel McCoy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
2/27/15), (fourth alteration in original), this court stated the following regarding a jury’s rejection of a defendant’s hypothesis of innocence: With respect to a jury’s rejection of a hypothesis of innocence, our supreme court in [State v.] Calloway, [07-2306, p. 10 (La.
State v. McCoy 219 So. 3d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2/27/15), (fourth alteration in original), this court stated the following regarding a jury’s rejection of a defendant’s hypothesis of innocence: With respect to a jury’s rejection of a hypothesis of innocence, our supreme court in [State v.] Calloway, [07-2306, p. 10 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Marlon Frank Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Thomas 217 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Joenell Rubin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
2/27/15), this court noted: It is well settled that the fact finder’s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses.
State v. Rubin 211 So. 3d 532 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2/27/15), , this court noted: It is well settled that the fact finder’s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses.
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2/27/15), this court noted: It is well settled that the fact finder‟s role is to weigh the credibility of witnesses.
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2/27/15), , this court noted: It is well settled that the fact finder’s rolé is to weigh the credibility of witnesses!
State of Louisiana v. Odeal Pippins Lirette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2/27/15), held that “[a] reviewing court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury.” The defendant asserts i
State v. Lirette 195 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 6/18/14), , writ denied, 14-1544 (La.2/27/15), , held that “[a] reviewing court errs by substituting its appreciation of the evidence and credibility of witnesses for that of the fact finder and thereby overturning a verdict on the basis of an exculpatory hypothesis of innocence presented to, and rationally rejected by, the jury.” The defendant asserts in her brie
State of Louisiana v. Adam Batiste, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
2/27/15), noted that in case of circumstantial evidence, “the fundamental principle of review means that when a jury ‘reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant’s own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable dou
State v. Batiste 189 So. 3d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
3 Cir. 6/18/14), -35 , writ denied, 14-1544 (La.2/27/15), , noted that in *590 case of circumstantial evidence,, “the fundamental principle of review means .that when a jury ‘reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant’s own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by