DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126.

864 citing documents.

  • State v. Howard 448 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Cage 444 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Professor Pugh, in discussing the meaning of res gestae in relation to the admissibility of evidence of extraneous offenses under the Prieur Doctrine ( ) stated: "...
  • State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    s (rape victim) by denying the defendant the right to cross-examine the victim as to her prior sexual conduct or reputation for chastity; (3) In not allowing the defendant adequate time to present a defense to an alleged " Prieur notice," which was provided by the State only five (5) days before the trial was to begin; (4) and (5) In failing to properly charge the jury as to the limited purpose of the State's "other crimes" evidence, which could not form the basis for convicting the defendant of
  • State v. Kirkpatrick 443 So. 2d 546 La. 1983
    State v. Sutfield, supra
  • State v. Shaheen 440 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Joseph 441 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Moore 440 So. 2d 134 La. 1983
    In order to be admissible the extraneous offense must meet several tests: (1) there must be clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith; see also, (La.
  • State v. Franklin 440 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    ons provided here *225 in, we reach only four of these assignments, viz: (1) The trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for mistrial based on and arising from the prosecutor’s reference in the State’s opening statement to other uncharged crimes by the defendants, allegedly part of an ongoing agreement for conspiracy with Ralph Thomas, had not been provided.
  • State v. Daigle 440 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Ester 436 So. 2d 543 La. 1983
  • State v. Craddock 435 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
  • State v. Henry 436 So. 2d 510 La. 1983
    Prior to trial, the prosecutor, gave notice to defendant that evidence of another offense, allegedly committed by defendant, would be introduced at trial.
  • State v. Germain 433 So. 2d 110 La. 1983
    The state, informed defendant, on August 20, 1981, that it intended to use and introduce evidence of other acts under the evidentiary exceptions outlined in R.S.
  • State v. Montgomery 432 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    and was prejudicial to the defendant.
  • State v. Gomez 433 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    At this time, counsel for the defendant secured a hearing out of the presence of the jury and made a motion for "the dismissal of the indictment" and its progeny.
  • State v. Ducote 433 So. 2d 712 La. 1983
  • State v. Connor 431 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    a hearing was conducted at which Wilma Mitchell testified concerning an incident which occurred in May, 1982, in the bar and restaurant owned by Age and her husband.
  • State v. Taylor 430 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    contending that this photograph was a mug-shot, and thus constituted an improper reference to prior criminal conduct not admissible in this cause.
  • State v. Brown 428 So. 2d 438 La. 1983
    Counsel objected because the state had not provided notice that it would introduce evidence relating to this unindicted crime of aggravated assault and, therefore, (La.
  • State v. Barry 428 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    states the standard to be used in applying this article through the following language: "The admissibility of other acts of misconduct involves substantial risk of grave prejudice to a defendant...
  • State v. Trahan 425 So. 2d 1222 La. 1983
  • State v. Ludwig 423 So. 2d 1073 La. 1982
    Const. art. I, § 5,); (Louisiana's "rape shield" statute); (rule of court).
  • State v. Sawyer 422 So. 2d 95 La. 1982
    Our law contains also a great many jurisprudential rules, not the least important of which are the rules adopted by this court in State v. Prieur to guarantee due process of law and relevance in the introduction of other crimes evidence.
  • State v. Humphrey 431 So. 2d 751 La. 1982
    15:445, 446; Comment, Other Crimes Evidence in Louisiana — To Show Knowledge, Intent, System, etc. in the case in Chief, 33 La.L.
  • State v. Bland 419 So. 2d 1227 La. 1982
    [3] Bland further contends that the trial court should have severed the counts because they were not mutually admissible as legitimate "other crimes" or as similar acts within the contemplation of LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Edwards 420 So. 2d 663 La. 1982
    Outside of the jury's presence at trial, the court ruled that the state's answer to defendant's motion for discovery regarding the "crowbar incident" (La.
  • State v. Talbert 416 So. 2d 97 La. 1982
  • State v. Williams 418 So. 2d 562 La. 1982
  • State v. Feeback 414 So. 2d 1229 La. 1982
  • State v. Humphrey 412 So. 2d 507 La. 1982
    In the notice to defendant to use evidence of the battery of April 25, 1978, on the children, as required by Prieur [ ] and its progeny, the State said its purpose in offering that evidence was to show that defendant's alleged battery of April 28, 1978, on the children was intentional.
  • State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 2 La. 1982
    The state submitted a Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Similar Acts of Defendant to Prove Knowledge, System and Intent, and the trial court held a
  • State v. MacHon 410 So. 2d 1065 La. 1982
    that in deciding whether the joinder of similar offenses necessitates a severance because of possible prejudice to the defendant
  • State v. Belgard 410 So. 2d 720 La. 1982
  • State v. Donahue 408 So. 2d 1262 La. 1982
  • State v. Goza 408 So. 2d 1349 La. 1982
    [1] , appeal after remand
  • State v. Grey 408 So. 2d 1239 La. 1982
  • State v. McDermitt 406 So. 2d 195 La. 1981
    Defense counsel next contends that the State did not comply with mandatory procedural safeguards before introducing "other crimes" evidence
  • State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
    In defendant's view, (La.
  • State v. Bolton 408 So. 2d 250 La. 1981
    this Court established procedural guidelines for the use of other crimes evidence at trial.
  • State v. Acliese 403 So. 2d 665 La. 1981
    [1] *667 the state served written notice on defendant that it intended to offer evidence of prior sexual offenses committed by him against the victim "to corroborate the offense charged, to show intimate relations between the parties, to show the lustful disposition of the defendant, to show the probability of him h
  • State v. Whitt 404 So. 2d 254 La. 1981
    By a pretrial motion defendant sought to prohibit the state from using "system and intent"
  • State v. Smith 401 So. 2d 1179 La. 1981
    15:445 and 446 to establish intent, it was inadmissible in this instance because of the state's failure to give the *1182
  • State v. Hebert 402 So. 2d 674 La. 1981
  • State v. Day 400 So. 2d 622 La. 1981
  • State v. Prestridge 399 So. 2d 564 La. 1981
  • State v. LaFleur 398 So. 2d 1074 La. 1981
  • State v. Brown 398 So. 2d 1381 La. 1981
    In order for the evidence on the car theft to be admissible, [1] which are (1) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the theft had been committed by defendant, (2) the other crime must be relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character, (3) the other crime does
  • State v. Haarala 398 So. 2d 1093 La. 1981
  • State v. Spell 399 So. 2d 551 La. 1981