Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Gaines, 340 So. 2d 1294.

39 citing documents.

Explained State v. Rose 949 So. 2d 1236 La. 2007
exhibit such peculiar modes of operations to distinguish them as the work of one person.'" Hills , 99-1750 at pp. 6-7, 761 at 521 ().
State v. Merritt 877 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
art. 404(B), such evidence must be closely analyzed to determine whether it exhibits "`such peculiar modes of operation to distinguish them as the work of one person.'" Hills, 761 So.2d at 521 ().
State v. Marshall 841 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Hills , 99-1750 at pp. 6-7, 761 So.2d at 521 ().
State v. Williams 769 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Hills , 99-1750 at pp. 6-7, 761 So.2d at 521
State v. Hills 761 So. 2d 516 La. 2000
State v. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
[1] the Supreme Court sets forth guidelines for determining the admissibility of evidence of other crimes: (1) There must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the other crimes ( )
State v. McArthur 702 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Lee 637 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
1979), in order for such evidence to be admissible: (1) [T]here must be clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the uncharged offenses must be so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say they are the work of the same person
State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
lained the requirements for the admissibility of other crimes evidence under the modus operandi exception, as follows: "In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, Sec.
State v. Magouirk 539 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
In order to be admissible, other crimes evidence 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; see also, State v. Gaines, *59 (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the uncharged offenses must be so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say they are the work of the same p
State v. Charles 502 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
me Court outlined the requirements for the admissibility of other-crimes evidence under the modus operandi or system exception: “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: see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, Section 190, pp. 451-452 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and t
State v. Farmer 497 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Guarisco 466 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 458 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Moore 440 So. 2d 134 La. 1983
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; see also, (La.
State v. Henry 436 So. 2d 510 La. 1983
iscussed the requirements for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under the modus operandi or system exception: *513 In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the unch
State v. Humphrey 431 So. 2d 751 La. 1982
es exhibiting almost identical modus operandi, committed in close proximity to the charged offense, will be admissible: In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the unch
State v. Talbert 416 So. 2d 97 La. 1982
"In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, Sec.
State v. McDermitt 406 So. 2d 195 La. 1981
upra, this Court outlined the following prerequisites to admitting evidence of other criminal offenses to prove guilt: "In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the unch
State v. Day 400 So. 2d 622 La. 1981
State v. Cann 392 So. 2d 381 La. 1981
State v. Davis 389 So. 2d 71 La. 1980
State v. Martin 377 So. 2d 259 La. 1979
See also: (docket no. 58,054, November 8, 1976)
State v. Hatcher 372 So. 2d 1024 La. 1979
In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence 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; see also, (concurring opinion); McCormick on Evidence, § 190, pp. 451-52 (2d ed. 1972); (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the uncharged offenses must be so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say they are the work of the same person
State v. Herman 358 So. 2d 1282 La. 1978
State v. Showers 359 So. 2d 104 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. Gaines 354 So. 2d 548 La. 1978
State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
State v. Burnette 353 So. 2d 989 La. 1977
McCormick on Evidence, § 190, p. 454 (2d ed. 1972); People v. McKinney, 24 N.Y.2d 180 , 299 N.Y.S.2d 401 , 247 N.E.2d 244 (1969); State v. Gilligan, 92 Conn. 526 , 103 A. 649 (1918)
State v. Jackson 352 So. 2d 195 La. 1977
State v. Carter 352 So. 2d 607 La. 1977
State v. Ballard 351 So. 2d 484 La. 1977
State v. Ledet 345 So. 2d 474 La. 1977
State v. Lee 340 So. 2d 1339 La. 1976
State v. Frederick 340 So. 2d 1353 La. 1976
See also: (docket no. 58,054, November 8, 1976)