DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Moore, 278 So. 2d 781.

104 citing documents.

  • State v. Lecompte 371 So. 2d 239 La. 1979
    State v. Jackson, supra ; (on rehearing)."
  • State v. Jackson 367 So. 2d 353 La. 1979
    State v. Jackson, supra; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Constantine 364 So. 2d 1011 La. 1978
  • State v. Wilson 363 So. 2d 481 La. 1978
    Defendant also contends that the probative value of other crimes, evidence which comprises part of the res gestae, must be balanced against its prejudicial effect *485 under State v. Moore, La., (1973) and State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
  • State v. Morris 362 So. 2d 1379 La. 1978
    See also: Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law 30 (1974).
  • State v. Lewis 358 So. 2d 1285 La. 1978
    493, would evidence of one crime be admissible as "other offenses" ?
  • State v. Herman 358 So. 2d 1282 La. 1978
  • State v. Nelson 357 So. 2d 1100 La. 1978
  • State v. Risen 357 So. 2d 531 La. 1978
    See, (decided January 30, 1978)
  • State v. Crumholt 357 So. 2d 526 La. 1978
    In accord with general authority, See, McCormick § 190, Louisiana courts also have admitted such evidence for purposes other than those listed in the statutes, e. g., identity, motive, State v. Dowdy, 217 La.
  • State v. Mitchell 356 So. 2d 974 La. 1978
    State v. Jackson, supra ; (on rehearing).
  • State v. Sutfield 354 So. 2d 1334 La. 1978
    In accord with general authority, See, McCormick § 190, Louisiana Courts also have admitted such evidence for purposes other than those listed in the statutes, e. g., identity, (La.
  • State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
  • State v. Burnette 353 So. 2d 989 La. 1977
  • State v. Carter 352 So. 2d 607 La. 1977
  • State v. Walker 344 So. 2d 990 La. 1977
    15:435, quoted in Assignments of Error Nos. 15 and 16, in State v. Moore, La., (1972), we stated: *996 "The impact of this bland little sentence is easily overlooked.
  • State v. Ledet 345 So. 2d 474 La. 1977
    When the state at trial sought to introduce the extraneous offense testimony, defense counsel again strenuously objected, arguing, as before, the evidence was not relevant to a material issue in the case, and that its only purpose was to inflame the jury by showing the defendant's despicable and criminal conduct on another occasion.
  • State v. Gaines 340 So. 2d 1294 La. 1977
    this court established a framework within which to analyze whether an extraneous offense is admissible.
  • State v. Slayton 338 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
  • State v. Ervin 340 So. 2d 1379 La. 1976
  • State v. Lee 340 So. 2d 1339 La. 1976
  • State v. Frederick 340 So. 2d 1353 La. 1976
  • State v. Clark 338 So. 2d 690 La. 1976
  • State v. Redwine 337 So. 2d 1041 La. 1976
  • State v. Waddles 336 So. 2d 810 La. 1976
  • State v. McDaniel 336 So. 2d 841 La. 1976
  • State v. Junegain 324 So. 2d 438 La. 1975
    Applying this statute in State v. Moore, La., (1973), we stated: "The impact of this bland little sentence is easily overlooked.
  • State v. Price 325 So. 2d 780 La. 1975
    See State v. Kinchen, La., (1974); State v. Moore, La., (1972).
  • State v. Davis 311 So. 2d 860 La. 1975
  • State v. Elam 312 So. 2d 318 La. 1975
    In spite of our determination that these events do not constitute evidence of "other criminal offenses" (La.
  • State v. Foss 310 So. 2d 573 La. 1975
  • State v. Moore 305 So. 2d 532 La. 1975
  • State v. Graves 301 So. 2d 864 La. 1974
  • State v. Vince 305 So. 2d 916 La. 1974
    [50] The defense relies upon State v. Moore, La., (1973) and State v. Prieur, La., (1973).
  • State v. Cummings 303 So. 2d 725 La. 1974
  • State v. Hicks 301 So. 2d 357 La. 1974
  • State v. McGuffey 301 So. 2d 582 La. 1974
    -788 (La.1972), this Court held that matters which are logically relevant to issues before the jury, such as is the case here, should not be excluded merely because they show the accused may have committed other offenses.
  • State v. Moore 300 So. 2d 492 La. 1974
  • State v. Medlock 297 So. 2d 190 La. 1974
  • State v. Pearson 296 So. 2d 316 La. 1974
    The defendant asserts that the admission of evidence of the extraneous offense violates the rules laid down by this Court in State v. Prieur, La., (1973) and State v. Moore, La., (1973).
  • State v. Knight 296 So. 2d 800 La. 1974
  • State v. Morgan 296 So. 2d 286 La. 1974
  • State v. Lawrence 294 So. 2d 476 La. 1974
  • State v. Roquemore 292 So. 2d 204 La. 1974
    945 , (1972); State v. Moore, supra [ ]; State v. Montegut, 257 La.
  • State v. Prather 290 So. 2d 840 La. 1974
    and State v. Ghoram, La., .
  • State v. Thomas 290 So. 2d 690 La. 1974
    As a result, it is claimed that the trial was unfair and prejudicial to defendant
  • State v. Harrison 291 So. 2d 782 La. 1974
    See, e. g., (1973); (1973); (1973); , decided October 29, 1973; , decided October 29, 1973; , decided December 5, 1973.
  • State v. Ghoram 290 So. 2d 850 La. 1974
    15:481; State v. Prieur, supra
  • State v. Lewis 288 So. 2d 348 La. 1974
    See, e. g., State v. Jordan, La., (1973); State v. Prieur, La., (1973); State v. Moore, La., (1973); State v. Jefferson, La., (1973); State v. Cosie and Duplessis, La.
  • State v. Pettle 286 So. 2d 625 La. 1973