Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Demarcus Fobb La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
On the morning of trial, the State filed a seeking to introduce evidence of Defendant’s arrest for a charge of possession of marijuana in February 2010, subsequent to the charge for which he was being tried.1 The trial court determined that the subsequent arrest was closely-related and relevant to prove “intent, system, lack of mistake and other
State v. Fobb 91 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
On the morning of trial, the State filed a seeking to introduce evidence of Defendant’s arrest for a charge of possession of marijuana in February 2010, subsequent to the charge for which he was being tried.
State v. Bruce 93 So. 3d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Cavazos 94 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Generally, evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is inadmissible due to the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Cooley 92 So. 3d 1095 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Article 770(2) and that the article specifically states that the trial court’s admonition to the jury to disregard the defense testimony and exhibits of the other crime “shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial.” Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by the defendant is generally inadmissible because of the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.”
State v. Adams 89 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Campbell 86 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 85 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Napolean 87 So. 3d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Dauzart, 02-1187 (La.App.
State v. Robinson 87 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State v. Pierce 80 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Additionally, the trial court may consider whether evidence of one offense would have been admissible as other crimes evidence at the trials of the other offenses | and La.
State v. Harris 83 So. 3d 269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Besse 83 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Radican 80 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Roberson 81 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by the defendant is inadmissible due to the “substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant.”
State of Louisiana v. Russell Gene Ware, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Defendant‟s appellate counsel assigned two errors: “The trial court erred by allowing the introduction of „other crimes evidence‟ in the form of a conviction for Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile from 1994, (La.App.
State v. Ware 80 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Defendant’s appellate counsel assigned two errors: “The trial court erred by allowing the introduction of | ¡/other crimes evidence’ in the form of a conviction for Indecent Behavior with a Juvenile from 1994, (La.App.
State v. Small 78 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Douglas 80 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Ventris 79 So. 3d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
art. 404]; State v. Carter, [ ]
State v. Elie 74 So. 3d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 404]; State v. Carter, [ ]
State v. McElveen 73 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Moton 73 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Young 71 So. 3d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Russell 73 So. 3d 991 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 404 B, the state failed to meet the other criteria for admissibility under Art. 404 B
State v. Richardson 71 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 1104 sets forth the burden of proof in such instances: State v. Prieur; pretrial; burden of proof The burden of proof in a shall be identical to the burden of proof required by Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV, Rule 404.
State of Louisiana v. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Jacobs 67 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
494 , 169 L.Ed.2d 346 (2007)
State v. Hayes 70 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The trial judge conducted a Prieur hearing, (La.
State of Louisiana v. Alex P. Papillion La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
a hearing was held on the first day of trial, March 9, 2010, wherein the parties discussed the testimony of Laticia Fontenot and Shellie Fontenot.
State v. Papillion 63 So. 3d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
a hearing was held on the first day of trial, March 9, 2010, wherein the parties discussed the testimony of Laticia Fontenot and Shellie Fontenot.
State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Brooks 58 So. 3d 506 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Charles Gasaway La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
ng the pending trial; 2) that Judge Ritchie personally represented him in a separate criminal matter that would not be introduced as evidence of other crimes; and 3) that Judge Ritchie had personally represented Barbara Lee, a witness and a complainant in an incident giving rise to one of the three prior convictions that would be introduced as evidence of 1 the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth safeguards to be applied when the State intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under exc
State v. Gasaway 57 So. 3d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth safeguards to be applied when the State intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under exceptions to the "other crime” exclusionary rule.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
On July 26, 2007, Defendant filed a “Prieur Demand for Notice of all Bad Acts That May be Used Against Jonathan Boyer at His Trial.” On January 16, 2008, the State filed a response to Defendant’s request asserting that it did not intend to introduce evidence of crimes or bad acts of Defendant other than crimes or acts “which are a part of the continuing transaction of the offense for which the defendant is charged.” On January 22, 2008, Defendant filed a “Motion to Suppress Statement” al
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
On July 26, 2007, Defendant filed a “Pri-eur Demand for Notice of all Bad Acts That May be Used Against Jonathan Boyer at His Trial.” On January 16, 2008, the State filed a response to Defendant’s request asserting that it did not intend to introduce evidence of crimes or bad acts of Defendant other than crimes or acts “which are a part of the continuing transaction of the offense for which the defendant is charged.” On January 22, 2008, Defendant filed a “Motion to Suppress Statement” alleging
State v. White 57 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. David G. Sarpy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Sarpy 52 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Vincent Marinello La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Notice The defendant also contends the record does not contain notice of the State’s intent to offer evidence of FEMA fraud or fraud in obtaining funds from Hurricane Katrina donations from co-employees.14 the evidence was improperly admitted.
State of Louisiana v. H. A., Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
art. 404]; State v. Carter, []
State v. Marinello 49 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
14 the evidence was improperly admitted.