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. Tauzier 397 So. 2d 494 La. 1981
    Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law 30 (1974).
  • State v. James 396 So. 2d 1281 La. 1981
  • State v. Friddle 396 So. 2d 1242 La. 1981
  • State v. Littleton 395 So. 2d 730 La. 1981
  • State v. Walker 394 So. 2d 1181 La. 1981
    Defendant objected and moved for a mistrial arguing that the inquiry called for evidence of other crimes alleged to have been committed by defendant as to which evidence was not admissible and that, if the evidence was admissible under an exception
  • State v. Lawson 393 So. 2d 1260 La. 1981
    He argues that if the testimony was admissible
  • State v. Deville 391 So. 2d 1145 La. 1980
  • State v. Gibson 391 So. 2d 421 La. 1980
    (3) deny defendant's motion for a new trial in a jury trial or for a judgment of acquittal, La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Davis 389 So. 2d 71 La. 1980
  • State v. Baylis 388 So. 2d 713 La. 1980
    15:445-6 the state was required to furnish in writing to the defendant a statement of the acts or offenses it intended to offer, specifying the exception to the general rule excluding such other crimes evidence under which it intended to offer the evidence.
  • State v. Washington 386 So. 2d 1368 La. 1980
    when crimes, which have been joined simply because they are the same or similar character offenses, are indeed legitimate `other crimes' under Prieur [ ] and its progeny (the offenses are sufficiently similar, the evidence is relevant to a real issue in each case, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh its probative value), a decision not to sever the crimes will normally be proper.
  • State v. Washington 386 So. 2d 1368 La. 1980
    when crimes, which have been joined simply because they are the same or similar character offenses, are indeed legitimate ‘other crimes’ under Prieur [] and its progeny (the offenses are sufficiently similar, the evidence is relevant to a real issue in each case, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh its probative value), a decision not to sever the crimes will normally be proper.
  • State v. Vernon 385 So. 2d 200 La. 1980
    [1] He assigns as error the trial judge's refusal to declare a were not satisfied.
  • State v. Lee 381 So. 2d 792 La. 1980
  • State v. Harris 383 So. 2d 1 La. 1980
    [2] a determination that multiple counts of the same or similar character may be simultaneously tried requires that the counts be mutually admissible as legitimate "other crimes"
  • State v. Gordy 380 So. 2d 1347 La. 1980
    we held that the state must give the defendant notice when it intends to introduce such evidence of other crimes and that such evidence can only be used to show system, intent or knowledge as contemplated by R.S.
  • State v. Knapp 378 So. 2d 911 La. 1979
  • State v. Martin 377 So. 2d 259 La. 1979
  • State v. Abercrombie 375 So. 2d 1170 La. 1979
  • State v. Hatcher 372 So. 2d 1024 La. 1979
  • State v. Williams 375 So. 2d 364 La. 1979
    this court required the prosecution to give the defense notice of its intention to introduce other crimes evidence.
  • State v. Jacobs 371 So. 2d 727 La. 1979
    Under Prieur [ ] the evidence of the unrelated offenses was admissible to prove the specific intent charged in two of the three counts.
  • State v. Dupre 369 So. 2d 1303 La. 1979
  • State v. Coleman 369 So. 2d 1286 La. 1979
    a determination that multiple counts charging offenses of the same or similar character may be simultaneously tried ordinarily requires that the counts be mutually admissible as legitimate "other crimes"
  • State v. Dickerson 368 So. 2d 703 La. 1979
    the evidence — a handkerchief, shredded newspaper and roll of play money — had no permissible relevance to this prosecution, that it was evidence of another crime tending to establish that the man arrested outside Schwegmann’s was the same man who had tricked Johnson outside Circle Pood Store (identity), had not been complied with.
  • State v. Monroe 364 So. 2d 570 La. 1978
  • State v. Boone 364 So. 2d 978 La. 1978
    Moreover, he reasoned, the testimony related to a that evidence of a prior offense would be presented.
  • State v. Hawthorne 364 So. 2d 917 La. 1978
    From this premise defense counsel reasons that the State introduced evidence of other crimes
  • State v. Wilson 363 So. 2d 481 La. 1978
    Defendant also contends that the probative value of other crimes, evidence which comprises part of the res gestae, must be balanced against its prejudicial effect *485 under State v. Moore, La., (1973) and State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
  • State v. Taylor 363 So. 2d 699 La. 1978
  • State v. Lukefahr 363 So. 2d 661 La. 1978
  • State v. Morris 362 So. 2d 1379 La. 1978
  • State v. Payton 361 So. 2d 866 La. 1978
    Const. 1974, art. I, §§ 2 and 16; (La.
  • State v. Lewis 358 So. 2d 1285 La. 1978
    493, would evidence of one crime be admissible as "other offenses" ?
  • State v. Herman 358 So. 2d 1282 La. 1978
    And, we set out the procedures the State must follow when it intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses.
  • State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
    In addition, defendant alleges that Prieur notice ( (La.
  • State v. Showers 359 So. 2d 104 La. 1978
  • State v. Nelson 357 So. 2d 1100 La. 1978
  • State v. Case 357 So. 2d 498 La. 1978
    See State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
  • State v. Risen 357 So. 2d 531 La. 1978
    15:445 and 15:446 the evidence should have been excluded.
  • State v. Crumholt 357 So. 2d 526 La. 1978
  • State v. Schwartz 354 So. 2d 1332 La. 1978
    it argues, however, that the burglaries formed part of the "res gestae" of the crime and thus were properly admitted into evidence.
  • State v. Sutfield 354 So. 2d 1334 La. 1978
  • State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
    In State v. Prieur, La., (1973), we held that other acts by the accused which are of a like nature as the crime charged, and which exhibit like methods, plans of operation, or the same modus operandi, are admissible to show system.
  • State v. Burnette 353 So. 2d 989 La. 1977
  • State v. Carter 352 So. 2d 607 La. 1977
    1977); State v. Moore, supra
  • State v. Elzie 351 So. 2d 1174 La. 1977
    Defendant complains that these questions served no purpose other than to prejudice the jury against his brother, and to paint him (defendant) as a "bad man," a
  • State v. Fraise 350 So. 2d 154 La. 1977
    Prior to a ruling on the motion, was rendered in which this court outlined certain procedural safeguards to be followed when the state intends to introduce evidence of other offenses to establish knowledge, system or intent.
  • State v. Mitchell 344 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
  • State v. Ledet 345 So. 2d 474 La. 1977
    State v. Gaines, supra ; State v. Slayton, supra ; State v. Moore, supra