Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Ronald St. Cyre La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
At the Prieur hearing, ( La.
State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
During pre-trial proceedings, the State filed a Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts under seal, (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Steven Rodney La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Kenneth Jones La. 2019
State Of Louisiana v. Chaddrick Piper La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
According to the defendant, ( La.
State of Louisiana v. Arijoray Lavon Copeland La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Steven Arnold La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Robert E. Smith Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
nsel notes, although not raised as assignments of error, that in Defendant’s motion for new trial, Defendant asserted the State withheld B.S.’s arrest history until the morning of trial thereby impeding cross-examination of B.S., and the district court allowed evidence of Defendant’s arrest for sexual offensive behavior as impeachment without conducting a (La.
State v. Acevedo 273 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Marvin S. Acevedo La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Jenkins 267 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State v. Barnett 267 So. 3d 209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
First, pursuant to State v. Prieur , (La.
State v. Jenkins 267 So. 3d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Mitchell 263 So. 3d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State v. Flag 262 So. 3d 1018 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
First, pursuant to State v. Prieur , (La.
State v. Coleman 259 So. 3d 1203 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
art. 404(B)(1) and a motion for a Prieur hearing, in accordance with State v. Prieur , (1973).
State v. Manson 259 So. 3d 1172 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Jacobs , supra ; State v. Prieur , (La.
State v. Jackson 265 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Separate and apart from the showing of relevancy and prejudice, (1973) and Article 404(B)(1), i.e. , upon request by the defendant, the State must provide the defendant with notice before trial it intends to offer prior crimes evidence.
State v. Lampley 265 So. 3d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
The defendant now appeals, assigning error in a counseled brief to the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the sentences, and assigning error in a pro se brief to the State introducing other crimes evidence without a (La.
State v. Devillier 258 So. 3d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State v. Anderson 258 So. 3d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Brown 256 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Klein 252 So. 3d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1981) (citing State v. Prieur , (La.
State of Louisiana v. Aaron Orlando Richards -Aka- Aaron Richards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
1 superseded, in part, by statute, La.Code Evid.
State of Louisiana v. John Drummer, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
At the hearing held on May 26, 2016, Ms. Dixon testified she and Defendant had a relationship for about a year.4 They have a son together, born in August 2013.
State v. Drummer 245 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
At the hearing held on May 26, 2016, Ms. Dixon testified she and Defendant had a relationship for about a year.
State v. Richards 247 So. 3d 878 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Colby 244 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Cooley 247 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Hutsell 241 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2018
State v. Trung Le 243 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 404B(1); State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State v. Garcie 242 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State v. Dixon 241 So. 3d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
art. 404(B)(1) ; State v. Prieur , , 128 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Walker Stafford -Aka- Derrick Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a defendant is generally inadmissible because of the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to a defendant.”
State v. Stafford 241 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. Allen Joseph Morehead La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
As referenced in the above-passage, the State relied upon documentation of the underlying federal conviction by reference to State Exhibit-1, which it introduced into evidence at a
State v. Morehead 239 So. 3d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
As referenced in the above-passage, the State relied upon documentation of the underlying federal conviction by reference to State Exhibit-1, which it introduced into evidence at a pre-trial hearing conducted pursuant to State v. Prieur
State v. Jackson 246 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
5/1/17), , citing State v. Prieur , (La.
State v. Green 245 So. 3d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
State v. Brown 235 So. 3d 1314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 5 Cir. 12/14/16), ( (La.
State v. Chatman 227 So. 3d 802 La. 2017
State v. Handy 226 So. 3d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
The defendant’s assignment of errors number 2 and number 3 both involve issues concerning the State’s “Prieur Notice”, (La.
State v. Robertson 243 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Mosley 223 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Maize 223 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Hawkins 219 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel McCoy, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
[State v.] Prieur, [], 128 [(La.1973)].
State v. McCoy 219 So. 3d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
[State v.] Prieur, [ ], 128 [ (La.1978) ].
State v. Randolph 219 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
These motions are often referred to as Pri-eur motions, in reference to Louisiana's seminal case on the admission of other crimes evidence, (La.
State v. Jones 220 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by the *137 defendant is generally inadmissible because of the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.” (La.