Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

State v. Sylvester 343 So. 2d 1020 La. 1977
State v. Gaines 340 So. 2d 1294 La. 1977
Although the earlier jurisprudence was quite liberal in the application of the system exception, and other cases [5] have more clearly delineated and limited the scope of "system."
State v. Slayton 338 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
State v. Ervin 340 So. 2d 1379 La. 1976
State v. Brown 340 So. 2d 1306 La. 1976
State v. Frederick 340 So. 2d 1353 La. 1976
State v. Marmillion 339 So. 2d 788 La. 1976
required notice not only of offenses but of attempts to commit crimes also.
State v. Dupre 339 So. 2d 10 La. 1976
State v. Morris 340 So. 2d 195 La. 1976
It was his impression that perhaps the question might necessitate an answer that part of the chair was used in the beating of the victim, and this might be a because it referred to another offense.
State v. Clark 338 So. 2d 690 La. 1976
State v. Hatter 338 So. 2d 100 La. 1976
State v. Flowers 337 So. 2d 469 La. 1976
State v. Bias 337 So. 2d 426 La. 1976
First, he contends that the State was permitted to introduce evidence of a (La.
State v. Waddles 336 So. 2d 810 La. 1976
: The admissibility of other acts of misconduct involves substantial risk of grave prejudice to a defendant.
State v. Terregano 336 So. 2d 859 La. 1976
He also avers that the District Attorney failed to comply with the procedural guidelines for the use of evidence of other similar offenses set forth in State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
State v. McDaniel 336 So. 2d 841 La. 1976
the State had served defendant with a notice of its intention to introduce evidence of other crimes.
State v. Gordon 336 So. 2d 793 La. 1976
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1, 3 AND 4 (La.
State v. Kenner 336 So. 2d 824 La. 1976
This is claimed to be a reference to evidence of another crime, i.e., armed robbery
State v. Jones 332 So. 2d 466 La. 1976
State v. Clay 327 So. 2d 395 La. 1976
It is contended that the court committed reversible error in allowing evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant to be introduced into evidence over objection by defendant, a (La.
State v. Luckett 327 So. 2d 365 La. 1976
State v. McCray 327 So. 2d 408 La. 1976
In brief to this Court, he also argues that they were introduced without a proper foundation and without prior notice to the defendant of the State's intention to introduce evidence of other crimes of a like nature as is required under State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
State v. Scott 320 So. 2d 538 La. 1975
Assignments of Error: We find no reversible merit to the assignments of error: Assignment 1: The defendant entered a continuing objection, which was overruled
State v. O'CONNER 320 So. 2d 188 La. 1975
is also cited to support the contention.
State v. Price 325 So. 2d 780 La. 1975
State v. Brown 318 So. 2d 24 La. 1975
State v. Mays 315 So. 2d 766 La. 1975
State v. Davis 311 So. 2d 860 La. 1975
State v. Blanton 312 So. 2d 329 La. 1975
In the alternative, defendant argued in his motion for a new trial that he was entitled to notice () that the State intended to introduce evidence of the later shooting.
State v. Elam 312 So. 2d 318 La. 1975
At the time of their objections and their motion for a mistrial, and complained of the State's failure to provide the notice which is required by that decision.
State v. Smith 310 So. 2d 580 La. 1975
770(2), 771; and succeeding jurisprudence.
State v. Foss 310 So. 2d 573 La. 1975
State v. Banks 307 So. 2d 594 La. 1975
His contention that service of the notice six months before trial violated the requirement of "reasonable" is insubstantial.
State v. Graves 301 So. 2d 864 La. 1974
State v. Carter 301 So. 2d 612 La. 1974
Defendants assert that this testimony contained the implication that they were known criminals and referred to other crimes in violation of the holding in State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
State v. Vince 305 So. 2d 916 La. 1974
[50] The defense relies upon State v. Moore, La., (1973) and State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
State v. Cummings 303 So. 2d 725 La. 1974
State v. Wright 301 So. 2d 616 La. 1974
art. 800 provides: “A defendant cannot complain of a ruling refusing to sustain a challenge for cause made by him, unless his peremptory challenges shall have been exhausted before the completion of the panel.” BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS NOS. 3, 4 AND 6 Prior to trial the State, submitted to the defendant notice that it would introduce evidence of other criminal offenses for the purpose of showing that each offense was a part of a common system under La.R.S.
State v. Hicks 301 So. 2d 357 La. 1974
State v. Moore, on rehearing
State v. Jenkins 299 So. 2d 783 La. 1974
State v. Medlock 297 So. 2d 190 La. 1974
we set forth safeguards with which the State and the trial court must comply when evidence of other offenses is to be presented at trial.
State v. Pearson 296 So. 2d 316 La. 1974
The defendant asserts that the admission of evidence of the extraneous offense violates the rules laid down by this Court in State v. Prieur, La., (1973) and State v. Moore, La., (1973).
State v. Morgan 296 So. 2d 286 La. 1974
the State served written notice upon defendant that it intended to offer evidence of another criminal offense to show intent and also to show that each offense was part of a common system.
State v. Lewis 294 So. 2d 204 La. 1974
Bill 1 This bill was reserved when the Court overruled the defense counsel’s objection to the prosecution’s introduction into evidence of testimony of previous offenses of the accused on the ground that the State had .
State v. Lawrence 294 So. 2d 476 La. 1974
the State filed notice of its intention to use evidence of another armed robbery in this armed robbery prosecution for the purpose of proving system and intent.
State v. Roquemore 292 So. 2d 204 La. 1974
State v. Ackal 290 So. 2d 882 La. 1974
This trial occurred before the decision of this Court in State v. Prieur, La., (1973), became final.
State v. Thomas 290 So. 2d 690 La. 1974
As a result, it is claimed that the trial was unfair and prejudicial to defendant
State v. Prather 290 So. 2d 840 La. 1974
and State v. Ghoram, La., .
State v. Harrison 291 So. 2d 782 La. 1974
See, e. g., (1973); (1973); (1973); , decided October 29, 1973; , decided October 29, 1973; , decided December 5, 1973.