Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Wayne Carmouche La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
The issue in Williams, however, was whether for the purpose of Article 412.2, a
State v. Mark 146 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Carmouche 145 So. 3d 1101 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
The issue in Williams , however, was whether for the purpose of Article 412.2, a
State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
This is because the defendant’s pretrial motion in limine referenced only two 911 calls: the call placed by “Joy” and a call placed by a person identified only as “Lawrence.” 9 Thereafter, during the pre-trial motion hearing, the defendant argued that Ms. Duncan’s but asserted no other grounds for its exclusion.
State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Hatfield 155 So. 3d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
With regard to the testimony of all of these witnesses, as well as the testimony of Mr. Boyles
State v. Stevens 140 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
With regard to the testimony of all of these witnesses, as well as the testimony of Mr. Boyles, the defendant first asserts that the state failed to provide him proper pretrial notice of the bad character *1280
State v. Richardson 142 So. 3d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Altenberger 139 So. 3d 510 La. 2014
In its written reasons, the trial court explained: The state’s motion includes language that indicates that the very intention of filing the Prieur Motion was to meet the requirements of 404(B)(1) (1973)....
State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Galliano, 2002-_g849,20 p. 2 (La.1/10/03), , (per curiam),().
State v. Jackson 132 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or bad acts committed by the defendant is generally inadmissible because of the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Khanh Le 131 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Allen 129 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Dominick 129 So. 3d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Spratt 129 So. 3d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lindsey 129 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The State then filed a to introduce evidence of Mr. Lindsey’s arrest for two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm arising from a 2007 drive-by shooting at Mr. Ricks’ residence.
State of Louisiana v. Phillip Wayne Raines La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
12/7/07), the second circuit noted: Admissibility of evidence of these prior acts has been succinctly set forth in State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), and the state is required to do the following when it seeks to present such evidence: (1) comply with the notice requirements and limiting instructions set out in State v. Prieur, [] supra; (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and was committed by the defendant; (3) show that the evidence falls within one of
State v. Raines 124 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
34 , writ denied, 07-1193 (La.12/7/07), , the second circuit noted: Admissibility of evidence of these prior acts has been succinctly set forth in State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), , and the state is required to do the following when it seeks to present such evidence: (1) comply with the notice requirements and limiting instructions set out in State v. Prieur, [ ] supra; (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and was committed by the defendant; (3) show tha
State v. Marshall 128 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Baskin 129 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Snyder 128 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Johnson 135 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
If the state seeks to present such evidence, it must comply with the requirements |^of Article 404(B) which provide that before trial the state must notify the defendant of its intent to use other crimes evidence, so that the district court may conduct a hearing to determine if the evidence is admissible.
State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Generally, evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is inadmissible due.to the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Taylor 123 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
410 , 184 L.Ed.2d 51 (U.S.2012) ().
State v. Cooper 120 So. 3d 844 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, in a separate trial on the joined offense, does not per se prevent the joinder and single trial of both crimes, if the joinder is otherwise permissible.
State v. Day 119 So. 3d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 404(B) to show identity, motive, opportunity, intent, plan, system, knowledge, and absence of mistake at trial.
State of Louisiana v. Davin Ryan Hanks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Defendant filed a request for a on May 15, 2009, but, apparently, no hearing was ever scheduled.
State v. Napoleon 119 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Bailey 115 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Eldridge Tezano, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
and its codification in La.Code Evid.
State v. Phillips 111 So. 3d 1021 La. 2013
The facts of Case No. 508-622 (distribution of marijuana) are sufficiently similar to the facts Case No. 510-820 (distribution of marijuana)
State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Henderson 107 So. 3d 566 La. 2013
State v. Galliano, 2002-2849, p. 2 (La.1/10/03), , per curiam
State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
^Nevertheless, reasoning: It’s at a minimum to show his identity that the same person that did these things to these other people is the same person who killed this man here through the same — I would say you could probably get it under plan, but in the same way.
State v. Howard 106 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
art. 404 permitted such evidence only “to show intent, knowledge or system,” and Art. 404 B, adopted in 1988, allows it more broadly for “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, * * * or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Brenda Gail Rains La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Bourque, 622 So.2d at 233; Hamilton, 478 So.2d at 129
State of Louisiana v. G.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
I find that 412.2, as so astutely pointed out by Mrs. Gothreaux in the ENJADY decision they say ―that the practice is ancient does not mean it‘s embodied in the constitution.‖ So historically, we used what we used to call the State vs. Prieur, [ ]which was then--the acronym utilized was K.I.S., knowledge, system and intent and embodied in the Kennedy decision, and that‘s been historically the case.
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
However, in a separate trial on the joined offense, does not per se prevent the joinder and single trial of both crimes, if the joinder is otherwise permissible.
State v. Rains 101 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Bourque, 622 So.2d at 233 ; Hamilton, 478 So.2d at 129
State v. Granger 103 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Barnes 100 So. 3d 926 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Preston 103 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
art. 404(B)(1); therefore, prior to introducing the evidence.
State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Mitchell 97 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Johnny W. Chambers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)