Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

State v. HA, SR. 47 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 404]; State v. Carter, [ ]
State v. Burns 48 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Blow 46 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Williams 47 So. 3d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Fisher 40 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Morgan 34 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Smith 34 So. 3d 386 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Lomax 35 So. 3d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Barbour 35 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Williams, 96-1023, p. 30 (La.1/21/98)
State v. Anderson 38 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Lawrence 32 So. 3d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Jones 33 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Hyman 33 So. 3d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In his next assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying a mistrial because, during trial, the State improperly introduced “other crimes”
State v. Collins 30 So. 3d 72 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Murphy 28 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Page 28 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Sumlin 25 So. 3d 931 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Fontenberry 27 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
in a separate trial on the joined offense, does not prevent the joinder and single trial of both crimes, if the joinder is otherwise permissible.
State v. BREAKFIELD 21 So. 3d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Jordan 19 So. 3d 1191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
On July 18, 2008, the trial court heard the Motion to Suppress and, at the same time, conducted a hearing.
State v. Scott 20 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. GRH 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Specifically, if it was determined that he was not entitled to a pre-trial hearing and determination of admissibility
State of Louisiana v. G. R. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Specifically, if it was determined that he was not entitled to a pre-trial hearing and determination of admissibility
State v. Schaller 15 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Butler 15 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Finally, must be met before the evidence is properly admissible.
State v. Woods 4 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Cases joined under article 493.2 must be tried “by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” In determining whether two charged offenses should be severed, and La.
State v. Ridgley 7 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Taylor, 37,356 (La.App.2d Cir.9/26/03), , writ denied, 03-3141 (La.3/19/04), ; State v. Carter, 97-1096 (La.App.
State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Taylor, 37,356 (La.App.2d Cir.9/26/03), , unit denied, 03-3141 (La.3/19/04), ; State v. Carter, 97-1096 (La.App.
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
720 because in the penalty phase there has already been a determination of guilt lessening the chance that the defendant will be tried for crimes other than those charged.
State v. Malone 998 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
In the case sub judice, (La.
State v. Davis 993 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In addition, with respect to pretrial written notice of its intent to use this evidence and a detailed description of the prior bad acts.
State of Louisiana v. Timothy E. Robertson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Specifically, Defendant challenges the admissibility of S-2, a prior Winn Parish conviction, “used in connection with the Amended Bill of Information as well as the introduction of other crimes evidence.” because the State failed to show the grounds for the relevancy or admissibility of the evidence.
State v. Robertson 988 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Specifically, Defendant challenges the admissibility of S-2, a prior Winn Parish conviction, “used in connection with the Amended Bill of Information as well as the introduction of other crimes evidence.” because the State *308 failed to show the grounds for the relevancy or admissibility of the evidence.
State v. Crandell 987 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Nix 987 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Shaw 987 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
494 , 169 L.Ed.2d 346 (2007); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Baker, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In brief to this court, the defendant argues that, it elected not to use other crimes evidence under La.Code Evid.
State v. Baker 986 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
In brief to this court, the defendant argues that, it elected not to use other crimes evidence under La.Code Evid.
State v. Jones 985 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Greer 981 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Winn 978 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In addition, with respect to pretrial written notice of its intent to use this evidence and a detailed description of the prior bad acts.
State v. Cotton 980 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Gullette 975 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
State v. Dixon 974 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
If the state seeks to present such evidence, it must comply with the requirements of Article *801 404(B) and provide notice to the defendant so that the trial court may conduct a hearing to determine if the evidence is truly admissible.