evaluating claim in Louisiana

52 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Captvillegreen la · 1984 · cited in 13 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–2016 2 sentences 2016Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine 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. Neal, [20]00-0674 (La.6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 1996The standard for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), wherein the Court held that "the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. at 2789 ; State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984) (recognizing Louisiana's adoption of the Jackson standard); see also LA.CODE CRIM.	13	13
State v. Nealgreen la · 2001 · cited in 13 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016 2 sentences 2016Under this standard, the appellate' court “must déter-mine 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. Neal, [20]00-0674, (La.6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)). 2016Under this standard, the appellate court “must determine 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. Neal, [20]00-0674 (La.6/29/01) 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984)).	12	13
State v. Smithgreen la · 2003 · cited in 16 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018 2 sentences 2018The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Smith , 01-2574, pp. 6-7 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1 , 4, set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art. 2014Williams v. State, 13-0414 (La.7/31/13), 118 So.3d 1115 , this court recognized the standard for reviewing an excessive sentence claim: In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 , the Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence, directing that even if a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for excessiveness.	1	16
State v. Sepulvadogreen la · 1979 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015State v. Hackett, 13-0178, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/13), 122 So.3d 1164, 1174 , writ denied, 13-2122 (La.5/2/14), 138 So.3d 1238 (citing State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979)).	1	1
State v. Taylorgreen lactapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013See, State v. Taylor, 2012-0114, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/28/12), 104 So.3d 679, 684 (where an issue is not presented in writing or orally during multiple offender proceedings, it cannot be raised on appeal). \| uExcessive Sentence The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Smith, 2001-2574, pp. 6-7 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 , set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: Louisiana Constitution of 1974, art.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Jackson v. Virginia red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2019The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Brown , set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence, stating that: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2019The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Brown , set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence, stating that: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).	15	1996–2019
State v. Brown green la · 2005 2 sentences 2016Further,, the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence in State v. Brown, 03-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1 , 18: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisiana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2016The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of insufficient evidence in State v. Brown, 2003-0897, p. 22 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 1 , 18: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, Louisi ana appellate courts are controlled by the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).	14	2008–2019
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 2024The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is the two-step formulation articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 18681 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ( 1968). 2024The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is the two-step formulation articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 18681 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ( 1968).	13	2008–2024
State v. Pena green lactapp · 2008 2 sentences 2016The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is a two-step formulation: the .court must determine “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Pena, 43,321 (La.App.2d Cir.07/30/08), 988 So.2d 841 . 2016The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is a two-step formulation: the court must determine “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Pena, 43,321 (La.App.2d Cir.07/30/08), 988 So.2d 841 .	7	2010–2019
State v. Sims neutral lactapp · 2005 2 sentences 2013The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is the two-step formulation articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ; State v. Pena, 43,321 (La.App.2d Cir.7/30/08), 988 So.2d 841 ; State v. Sims, 40,300 (La.App.2d Cir.10/26/05), 914 So.2d 594 . 2010The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is the two-step formulation articulated in Terry v. Ohio, supra; State v. Pena, 43,321 (La.App.2d Cir.7/30/08), 988 So.2d 841 ; State v. Sims, 40,300 (La.App.2d Cir.10/26/05), 914 So.2d 594 .	6	2008–2013
United States v. Mateen Yusuf Shabazz, A/K/A Edward L. Eberhart, A/K/A Edward Wallace, and Keith Lamar Parker green ca5 · 1993 2 sentences 2013The court must determine “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431 (5th Cir.1993), quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra. For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a traffic violation, occurred or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle. 2010The court must determine “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances *336 which justified the interference in the first place.” United States v. Shabazz, supra, quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra. For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a traffic violation, occurred or is about to occur before stopping the vehicle.	5	2008–2013
State v. Hunt green la · 2009 1 sentence 2024The court must determine " whether the officer' s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." See State v. Hunt, 2009- 1589 ( La. 12/ 1/ 09), 25 So.3d 746, 753 ; Terry, 392 U.S. at 20 , 88 S. Ct. at 1879 .	1	2024–2024
Duke v. State green alacrimapp · 2004 1 sentence 2015In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 889 So.2d 1 , 4 (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence: “A sentence is \| ^constitutionally excessive when it imposes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering.” “For legal sentences imposed within the range provided by the legislature, a trial court abuses its discretion only when it contravenes the prohibition of excessive punishment in La.	1	2015–2015
State v. Hackett green lactapp · 2013 1 sentence 2015State v. Hackett, 13-0178, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/13), 122 So.3d 1164, 1174 , writ denied, 13-2122 (La.5/2/14), 138 So.3d 1238 (citing State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979)).	1	2015–2015
State v. King neutral la · 2014 1 sentence 2015State v. Hackett, 13-0178, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/13), 122 So.3d 1164, 1174 , writ denied, 13-2122 (La.5/2/14), 138 So.3d 1238 (citing State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979)).	1	2015–2015
State ex rel. Johnson v. State neutral la · 2013 1 sentence 2014Williams v. State, 13-0414 (La.7/31/13), 118 So.3d 1115 , this court recognized the standard for reviewing an excessive sentence claim: In State v. Smith, 2001-2574, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4 , the Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of excessive sentence, directing that even if a sentence is within statutory limits, it can be reviewed for excessiveness.	1	2014–2014
State v. Augustine neutral lactapp · 2013 1 sentence 2014He concludes that the entire state’s rebuttal argument appealed to prejudice, shifted the burden to the defense, and deprived him of his constitutional rights by violating the “rules”. \| a7This court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of improper closing argument in State v. Augustine, 13-0164, pp. 8-9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/4/13), 131 So.3d 109 , 115: As per La.Code Crim.	1	2014–2014
State v. Birgans neutral lactapp · 2011 1 sentence 2011State v. Birgans, 45,982 (La.App.2d Cir.1/26/11), 57 So.3d 478 ; State v. Lawrence, supra; State v. Khalfani, supra; State v. Pena, supra. The standard for evaluating a challenge to a routine warrantless stop for violating traffic laws is the two-step formulation articulated in Terry v. Ohio.	1	2011–2011
Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Bd. green la · 2002 1 sentence 2003Inadequate Supervision The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of inadequate supervision in Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Board, 01-1779 p. 7 (La.4/3/02), 813 So.2d 341 . 1.	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (19) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:967 (9) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:966 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:10 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:27 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:301.1 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:979 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:31 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:33 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

LA 52 (1996–2024) NJ 18 (1997–2026) TX 13 (1992–2024) CA 9 (2002–2021) OH 6 (1995–2016) GA 6 (1988–2004) ID 6 (1994–2016) AZ 4 (1998–2024) MO 4 (2013–2023) HI 3 (2008–2021) FL 3 (2011–2014) CO 3 (1983–1988) IL 2 (2011–2011) MS 2 (2001–2022) NM 2 (1993–2001) VT 2 (2012–2013) PA 2 (2001–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check