State v. Craddock

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Craddock

    73 So. 3d 380 (La. 2011)

    STATE of Louisiana v. Douglas K. CRADDOCK.Prior report: La.App., 62 So.3d 791. In re Craddock, Douglas K.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 23862; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1473.

  2. State v. Smith

    354 So. 3d 697 (La. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    In any event, if believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. Also, if believed, and in the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to support a factual conclusion.

  3. State v. Seawright

    No. 16-956 (La. Ct. App. May. 24, 2017)

    The first circuit affirmed a twenty-five-year sentence for an armed robbery committed with an unloaded BB gun. State v. Craddock, 10-1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, writ denied, 11-862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. The second circuit affirmed a thirty-year sentence for an armed robbery committed with an unloaded gun.

  4. State v. Griffin

    2015 KA 1765 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016)

    The victim's testimony alone was sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. An appellate 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. SeeState v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La. 1/21/09), 1 So.3d 417, 418 (per curiam).

  5. State v. Neal

    NUMBER 2015 KA 1131 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015)

    If believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. We cannot say that the jury's determination was irrational under the facts and circumstances presented to it.

  6. State v. Alexander

    182 So. 3d 126 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 34 times
    In State v. Alexander, 14-1619 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/18/15); 182 So.3d 126, 128–29, writ denied, 15-1912 (La. 1/25/16); 185 So.3d 748, the First Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction for attempted forcible rape where the defendant grabbed the victim from behind and wrapped his arms around the victim's waist and rib area.

    If believed, the testimony of the victim alone, with no other evidence, is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. See State v. Craddock, 10–1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795, writ denied, 11–0862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. Also, if believed, and in the absence of internal contradiction or irreconcilable conflict with the physical evidence, the testimony of one witness is sufficient to support a factual conclusion. State v. Higgins, 03–1980 (La.4/1/05), 898 So.2d 1219, 1226, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 883, 126 S.Ct. 182, 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005).

  7. State v. Henry

    159 So. 3d 1176 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    We note that the finder of fact may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness and that the victim's testimony alone is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. State v. Craddock, 10–1473 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, writ denied,11–862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. In addition to the victim's testimony, several witnesses, including the defendant, corroborated that the defendant aggressively approached Mr. Melancon, that he stated something to the effect of “give it up,” and that Mr. Melancon threw his phone at the defendant before running away.

  8. State v. Sewell

    NO. 2014 KA 0262 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2014)

    Even an artificial gun constitutes a dangerous weapon when the interaction between the offender and the victim created a highly charged atmosphere whereby there was a danger of serious bodily harm resulting from the victim's fear for his life. SeeState v. Craddock, 2010-1473, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 794, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. See alsoState v. Cittadino, 628 So.2d 251, 255 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1993) (where a victim's belief that a toy pistol pointed at her face was a real gun and that the defendant was going to kill her was sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery), A lay witness may testify as to opinions rationally based on his perception.

  9. State v. Fisher

    NO. 2013 KA 1152 (La. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2014)

    A sentence is considered constitutionally excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense or is nothing more than a purposeless and needless infliction of pain and suffering. A sentence is considered grossly disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Craddock, 2010-1473, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 795-796, writ denied, 2011-0862 (La. 10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. The trial court has. great discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits, and such a sentence will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Hurst, 99-2868, pp. 10-11 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/3/00), 797 So.2d 75, 83, writ denied, 2000-3053 (La. 10/5/01), 798 So.2d 962. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1 sets forth the factors for the trial court to consider when imposing sentence.

  10. Keith v. Keith

    140 So. 3d 1202 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 8 times
    Noting procedures for determining a motion to disqualify should “not penalize the plaintiff for asserting his right to the attorney-client privilege,” and directing the trial court to use certain methods to protect privileged information including in camera inspection, while being cognizant of the opposing side's inability to challenge certain evidence

    The burden of proving disqualification of an attorney rests on the party making the challenge. Walker v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev., supra; State v. Craddock, 2010–1473 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/25/11), 62 So.3d 791, 797, writ denied,2011–0862 (La.10/21/11), 73 So.3d 380. A disqualification inquiry, particularly when instigated by an opponent, presents a palpable risk of unfairly denying a party the counsel of his choosing.