DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

864 citing documents.

  • State v. Fortino 807 So. 2d 827 La. 2002
    At the least, the trial judge should not let into evidence the eleven year old incident regarding defendant and a prior wife without some showing that it is relevant to demonstrate intent, knowledge
  • State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
  • State v. Aleman 809 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    art. 404B(1); State v. McGinnis, 00-219 (La.App.
  • State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Temple 806 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Sprinkle 801 So. 2d 1131 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    ounsel contended that the police report, all testimony related to the burglary and the finding of the knife, or intimations that the Defendant may have planted the knife to support his theory of self-defense should be excluded because it was other crimes evidence, and the State failed to comply with the procedural requirements of written notice and a and La.
  • State v. Holley 799 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    Art. 403, 404(b) (1973) to introduce *581 evidence of "bad acts evidence" which was severely prejudicial to the defendant and the fair administration of justice.
  • State v. Jacobs 803 So. 2d 933 La. 2001
  • State v. Kelly 791 So. 2d 1286 La. 2001
  • State v. Morgan 791 So. 2d 100 La. 2001
    The trial court had ruled the evidence of the prior sexual assaults admissible "to establish the lustful disposition of the defendant and to negate the defense of consent," after conducting a
  • State v. Charles 790 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. LeBlanc 788 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Brown 788 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Blanchard 786 So. 2d 701 La. 2001
    art. 404(B), at the trial of the counts involving M.H.
  • State v. Gibson 785 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Deruise 802 So. 2d 1224 La. 2001
    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. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
    [1] In a the State sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's unadjudicated rape of another eight or nine-year-old girl allegedly committed sixteen years earlier in 1984.
  • State v. Kinsel 783 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    Defendant now complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Monroe sexual abuse because the state failed to comply with the procedural requirements of written notice and a and LSA-C.E.
  • State v. Williams 779 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    art. 404(B)(1) by introducing evidence regarding the gun found at her residence at the time of her arrest since the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
  • State v. Brown 782 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Rodriguez 781 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Cotton 778 So. 2d 569 La. 2001
    art. 404(B), (1973), and the balancing test set forth in LA.CODE EVID.
  • State v. Harris 781 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Morgan 779 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Livas 808 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    We agree with defense counsel that the lack of compliance with the [State v.] Prieur [ (1973)] requirements put her client in a position of having to rebut the other crime evidence and prejudiced him (FN3).
  • State v. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Clark 780 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Morris 770 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    The Defendant also implies that the State should have notified him that it intended to use evidence of another crime and the court should have held a
  • State v. Dickerson 772 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Finally, must be met: (1) The State shall within a reasonable time before trial furnish in writing to the Defendant a statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing same with the general particularity required of an indictment or information.
  • State v. Ashley 768 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    are “not applicable to the evidence of offenses which constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction which is the subject at bar.” State v. Salter, 31,633 (La.App.2d Cir.2/24/99), , writ denied, 99-0990 (La.9/24/99), .
  • State v. McGinnis 768 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Palermo 765 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
  • State v. Hills 761 So. 2d 516 La. 2000
    In order to be admissible, the extraneous offense must meet several tests: (1) there must be clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith; [6] ...; (2) the modus operandi *521 employed by the defendant in both the charged and uncharged offenses must be so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say they are the work of the same person.
  • State v. Maise 759 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Third, the requirements for admission of such evidence, (La.
  • State v. Black 757 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Ballay 757 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    The State responds that it filed its intent to introduce evidence relating to other shoplifting/refund fraud crimes that occurred on June 17, 1997, and on July 2, 1997, for the purpose of establishing system, pattern, knowledge, motive, and/
  • State v. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    In support of Pollard's argument, which provides that evidence of extraneous offenses is inadmissible because of the prejudicial effect upon the accused's constitutional presumption of innocence.
  • State v. Texada 756 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 751 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    the court noted the requirement for pre-trial consideration of other crimes evidence; a procedure which was codified in La.
  • State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
    with regard to the admission of other crimes evidence in the guilt phase of trial.
  • State v. Perez 745 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    State v. Evans, 99-0211, p. 5 (La.App.4 Cir.6/2/99), .
  • State v. Jackson 746 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Rogers 757 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Evans 746 So. 2d 1265 La. 1999
    Prerequisite to the introduction of other crimes evidence is a showing by the state that the evidence “is not merely repetitive and cumulative, is not a subterfuge for depicting the defendant’s bad character of his propensity for bad behavior, and that it serves the actual purpose for which it is offered.”
  • State v. Ross 743 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Evans 737 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Cordero 738 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hernandez 735 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    As to the issue of whether the State made a the defendant argues that the testimony of Desiree Comardelle, Rose Dufrene and Detective Zeller regarding prior threats made by the defendant to the victim, was improperly admitted at trial because the trial court applied the improper burden of proof when considering the admissibility of other crimes evide