756 So. 2d 576 - State v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2001
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Dorthey · State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The criterion for evaluating sufficiency of the evidence is whether, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational fact-trier could find that the state proved all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson [v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ]; State v. Clower, 30,745 (La.App.2d Cir.06/24/98), 715 So.2d 101 . That standard, initially enunciated in Jackson and now legislatively embodied within La. C. Cr. P. art. 821, is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. State v. Perry, 612 So.2d 986 (La.App. 2d Cir.1993). All evidence, both direct and circumstantial,. must be sufficient under the Jackson [sic] standard to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142 (La.1985); State v. Arrington, 514 So.2d 675 (La.App. 2d Cir.1987); State v. McKnight, 539 So.2d 952 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 548 So.2d 322 (La.1989).... Where a trier of fact has made a rational determination, an appellate court should not disturb it. In the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with physical evidence, the testimony of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient support for the requisite factual conclusion. State v. Clower, supra; State v. Thomas, [ 609 So.2d 1078 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 617 So.2d 905 (La.1993) ]; State v. Combs, 600 So.2d 751 (La.App. 2d Cir.199”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wisely
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.