State v. Korman

222 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gaines

    633 So. 2d 293 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 18 times

    If the trial court grants a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the new trial can proceed without being barred by double jeopardy. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 47, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2218 2221, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099, 1101 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). Moreover, the granting of a new trial under LSA-C.Cr.P. article 851 (1) is not subject to review by the appellate court.

  2. State v. Quinn

    479 So. 2d 592 (La. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 207 times

    Insufficient evidence cannot be the basis for a new trial. State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). If the evidence supporting a conviction is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a post verdict judgment of acquittal.

  3. State v. Matthews

    459 So. 2d 40 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, it must be determined 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. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). However, where there is conflicting testimony about factual matters, the resolution of which depends on a determination of the credibility of the witness, this is a matter of the weight of the evidence, not of sufficiency.

  4. State v. Johnson

    446 So. 2d 1371 (La. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 36 times
    In State v. Johnson, 446 So.2d 1371 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984), writ denied, 449 So.2d 1347 (La. 1984), the court held that "reference to a conviction for a municipal offense is not reference to 'another crime' for the same reason that a municipal offense is not a crime for purposes of impeachment" and does not mandate a mistrial.

    When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, it must be determined 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. La.C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). Where there is conflicting testimony as to factual matters the resolution of which depends on a determination of the credibility of the witnesses, this is a matter of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

  5. State v. King

    232 So. 3d 1207 (La. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Declining to "upset the longstanding jurisprudence concerning the reviewability of Article 851 and also craft a per se rule that a trial court cannot grant a new trial under Article 851 based purely on its rejection of a sole witness's testimony."

    Article 858 is also applicable to the courts of appeal. See La. Const. Art. V, § 10 (A); State v. Korman , 439 So.2d 1099, 1100 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983). Article 858 is also applicable to the courts of appeal.

  6. State v. Hamilton

    546 So. 2d 554 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 4 times
    In Hamilton, a police officer, while patrolling an area known for drug trafficking, observed Hamilton and another man acting in a manner consistent with a narcotics transaction.

    The proper method for raising the sufficiency of the evidence is by motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. La.C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). Defendant failed to file such a motion.

  7. State v. Bibbens

    525 So. 2d 255 (La. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    We note that, in order to challenge a conviction on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the defendant should have proceeded by way of a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, we will consider a claim of insufficiency of the evidence which has been briefed pursuant to a formal assignment of error.

  8. State v. Murphy

    515 So. 2d 558 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    The trial court can grant a new trial only if it is dissatisfied with the weight of the evidence; and, in so determining, that court makes a factual review as a thirteenth juror rather than under the sufficiency standard. State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099, 1101 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). The trial court's determination of whether to grant or deny a motion for new trial on this basis in not subject to review by the appellate courts.

  9. State v. Olsen

    496 So. 2d 1260 (La. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    This standard for the appellate review of facts in criminal cases has been made statutory. La.C.Cr.P. art. 821; State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984); State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). The verdict indicates that after considering the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the evidence, the jury accepted the testimony of the victim and rejected the testimony of the defendant.

  10. State v. Rounds

    476 So. 2d 965 (La. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Rounds, 476 So.2d 965 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985), the First Circuit reviewed the jurisprudence regarding the circumstantial evidence necessary to prove an intent to commit a felony or theft in simple burglary cases.

    Insufficient evidence cannot be the basis for a new trial. State v. Korman, 439 So.2d 1099 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). If the evidence supporting a conviction is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a post verdict judgment of acquittal.