Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rose, 949 So. 2d 1236.

84 citing documents.

State v. Khanh Le 131 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court has found that “[f]or evidence of motive to be independently relevant, it must be factually pai'ticular to the victim and the charged crime.” State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Allen 129 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the applicable law in State v. Rose, 2006-0402, pp. 12-13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 , as follows: It is well settled that courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Lindsey 129 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 403; See also State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 12-13 (La.2/22/07), -44 .
State v. Spratt 129 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 403, which provides: “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.” Addressing the meaning of the “unfair prejudice” component of the balancing test, in State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), , the Supreme Court noted that “[a]ny inculpatory evidence is ‘prejudicial’ to a defendant, especially when
State of Louisiana v. Phillip Wayne Raines La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07)
State v. Raines 124 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Marshall 128 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“For evidence of motive to be independently relevant, it must be factually particular to the victim and the charged crime.” State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the applicable law in State v. Rose, 2006-0402, pp. 12-13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 , as follows: It is well settled that courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Henderson 107 So. 3d 566 La. 2013
State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), , citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Granger 103 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The State cited to the Louisiana Supreme Court case, State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), , in support of its position that evidence of prior incidents of domestic violence are admissible to illustrate the volatile nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, and was not being used in the instant case for the purpose of showing the defendant is of bad character.
State v. Henry 102 So. 3d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
es: “[ajlthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.” Addressing the meaning of the “unfair prejudice” component of the balancing test, the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), , noted that “[a]ny inculpa-tory evidence is ‘prejudicial’ to a defendant, especially when it is ‘pr
State v. Smith 96 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 .
State of Louisiana v. Johnny W. Chambers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
2/22/07), -44 (footnote omitted), the supreme court discussed the admission of ―other crimes‖ evidence: It is well settled that courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Hernandez 93 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 17 (La.2/22/07)
State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
As noted by the Court in State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), , 1244: Any inculpatory evidence is “prejudicial” to a defendant, especially when it is “probative” to a high degree.
State v. Wright 79 So. 3d 309 La. 2011
State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), (internal citations removed).
State v. Small 78 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.02/22/07), , on remand, 05-0396 (La.App.
State v. Moton 73 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
In State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), , the supreme court explained: It is well settled that courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
However, when given the chance to clarify the burden of proof issue |12in State v. Rose, 2006-0402 (La.2/22/07), , the Louisiana Supreme Court declined.
State of Louisiana v. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
2/22/07), -46, stating: Although a defendant’s prior bad acts may be relevant and otherwise admissible under La.
State v. Dunn 49 So. 3d 876 La. 2010
See State v. Rose, 2006-0402 (La.2/22/07)
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Marinello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Marinello 49 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Even if admissible under Article 404(B)(1), “the evidence is not admissible unless it tends to prove a material fact at issue or to rebut a defendant’s defense.” State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Fisher 40 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
*1026 State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 .
State v. Barbour 35 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The Supreme Court set forth the applicable law in State v. Rose, 06-0402, pp. 12-13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 , as follows: | nIt is well settled that courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Tillman 7 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See State v. Rose, 2006-402 (La.2/22/07), (evidence of prior violence against a victim goes to motive and is extremely probative in a circumstantial case).
State v. Lewis 7 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Rose, 2006-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
iolence were against the victim in the particular charge being brought; ("[i]n this case, the state could not place the circumstances of the offense in their proper context without reference to the nature of the relationship existing between the victim and the defendant"); and when the prior acts were similar in nature ( State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07) (evidence that the defendant had brutally stabbed his previous wife to death admitted in trial for murder of the defendant's subsequent wife)
State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
violence were against the victim in the particular charge being brought; (“[i]n this case, the state could not place the circumstances of the offense in their proper context without reference to the nature of the relationship existing between the victim and the defendant”); and when the prior acts were similar in nature (State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07) (evidence that the defendant had brutally stabbed his previous wife to death admitted in trial for murder of tire defendant's subsequent wife
State v. Jarrell 994 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 12 (La.2/22/07), .
State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In State v. Rose, XXXX-XXXX, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 , the Court discussed the balancing test of undue prejudice and probative value: Although a defendant's prior bad acts may be relevant and otherwise admissible under La.
State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In State v. Rose, 06-0402, p. 13 (La.2/22/07), -1244 , the Court discussed the balancing test of undue prejudice and probative value: Although a defendant's prior bad acts may be relevant and otherwise admissible under La.
State v. Rose 955 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Rose, 06-0402 (La.2/22/07), .