Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Frederick, 340 So. 2d 1353.

44 citing documents.

State v. Scott 48 So. 3d 1080 La. 2010
State v. Scott 20 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Cooks 833 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Jacobs 803 So. 2d 933 La. 2001
State v. Hills 761 So. 2d 516 La. 2000
...; (3) the other crimes evidence must be substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character; (4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Lockett 754 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
On the other hand, the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically addressed the exact issue presented in this case and found reversible error.
State v. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
(2) The other crimes evidence must be substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show the defendant's general criminal character ( concurring opinion); (3) The other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue ( (4) The method of commission of both the charged and the uncharged crime must be so distinctively similar that one may logically infer that the same person committed both crimes ( (5) The probative value of the other crimes must outweigh its prejudici
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
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must out weigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Magouirk 539 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Moya 539 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
the court stated that, in proving an intent to distribute, only a general criminal intent is required.
State v. Charles 502 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Piazza 478 So. 2d 1318 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Guarisco 466 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
mitted it must be determined that: (1) there is clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith, State v. Prieur, supra ; (2) the other crimes evidence is substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character, (3) the other crimes evidence does tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue, and (4) the probative value of the
State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Moore 440 So. 2d 134 La. 1983
State v. Henry 436 So. 2d 510 La. 1983
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Humphrey 431 So. 2d 751 La. 1982
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Talbert 416 So. 2d 97 La. 1982
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must out weigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Goza 408 So. 2d 1349 La. 1982
State v. McDermitt 406 So. 2d 195 La. 1981
(4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.
State v. Walker 394 So. 2d 1181 La. 1981
mitted it must be determined that: (1) there is clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith, State v. Prieur, supra ; (2) the other crimes evidence is substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character, (3) the other crimes evidence does tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue, and (4) the probative value of the
State v. Cann 392 So. 2d 381 La. 1981
State v. Martin 377 So. 2d 259 La. 1979
For example, : Proof of present guilt may not properly be made by evidence of general bad character or of prior criminal record or of other criminal activity independent of the present offense.
State v. Abercrombie 375 So. 2d 1170 La. 1979
State v. Hatcher 372 So. 2d 1024 La. 1979
State v. Mitchell, supra
State v. Lecompte 371 So. 2d 239 La. 1979
State v. Jackson, supra ; (La.
State v. Jacobs 371 So. 2d 727 La. 1979
Since the latter charge was founded upon defendant's possession of only four lids of marijuana which he testified he intended to smoke, the evidence indicates that the presence or absence of his intention to distribute these drugs was a real and genuine matter at issue independent of his general claim of innocence posed by his plea of not guilty, and that the prejudicial effect of the other crimes evidence does not outweigh its probative value.
State v. Jackson 367 So. 2d 353 La. 1979
State v. Mitchell, supra
State v. Morris 362 So. 2d 1379 La. 1978
See: Wigmore on Evidence: Vol.
State v. Lewis 358 So. 2d 1285 La. 1978
he proof of other crimes is relevant to prove a fact of consequence to the accused's present guilt, or innocence (independent of the inadmissible purpose to infer that the accused was a bad man who committed the crime on trial because he committed the other one), State v. Moore, supra ; (1973); State v. Mitchell, supra ; State v. Jackson, supra ; (La.
State v. Showers 359 So. 2d 104 La. 1978
State v. Nelson 357 So. 2d 1100 La. 1978
State v. Mitchell 356 So. 2d 974 La. 1978
State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
State v. Holstead 354 So. 2d 493 La. 1977
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. Williams 352 So. 2d 1295 La. 1977
State v. Jackson 352 So. 2d 195 La. 1977
State v. Carter 352 So. 2d 607 La. 1977
1977); State v. Moore, supra
State v. Ballard 351 So. 2d 484 La. 1977
State v. Ledet 345 So. 2d 474 La. 1977