Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ledet, 345 So. 2d 474.

53 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Farry 206 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
State of Louisiana v. James Allen Drake, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Foremost, at least one of the enumerated purposes in Article 404(B) “must be at issue, have some independent relevance, or be an element of the crime charged in order for the evidence to be admissible.”
State v. Drake 903 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Foremost, at least one of the enumerated purposes in Article 404(B) “must be at issue, have some independent relevance, or be an element of the crime charged in order for the evidence to be admissible.”
State v. Dykes 867 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Foremost, at least one of the enumerated purposes in Article 404(B) “must be at issue, have some independent relevance, or be an element of the crime *913 charged in order for the evidence to be admissible.” State v. Kennedy, 2000-1554 (La.04/03/01), , writ denied, 2002-2088 (La.01/24/03), , citing State v. Jackson, supra
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
(Dixon, J., dissenting) (discussing [ State v. ] Moore [, ]).
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
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. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
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 prejudicial effect ().
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. McArthur 719 So. 2d 1037 La. 1998
("when there is no contest at all over the participation of the accused in the alleged incident, but the only question is whether any crime at all took place, evidence of extraneous offenses surves [sic] only to establish that defendant is capable of and thus likely to have committed the crime in questi
State v. Johnson 716 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
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
1976); (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. Moore 534 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
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
endant'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 extraneous *1362 crimes evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, State v. Prieur, supra ."
State v. Baker 452 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 443 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
A general statement of the reasons for prohibiting "other crimes" : "In order for a person to be found guilty of a crime, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime with which he stands charged, not that he may have committed it because he is a bad man who has committed other offenses on other occasions.
State v. Moore 440 So. 2d 134 La. 1983
See State v. Hatcher , above
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. Smith 430 So. 2d 31 La. 1983
the trial court must weigh, before it can admit evidence of prior arrests, the probative value of such evidence against the 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. 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
endant'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 extraneous crimes evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, (La.
State v. Deville 391 So. 2d 1145 La. 1980
State v. Davis 389 So. 2d 71 La. 1980
State v. Hatcher 372 So. 2d 1024 La. 1979
(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. Lecompte 371 So. 2d 239 La. 1979
State v. Jackson, supra ; (on rehearing)."
State v. Dupre 369 So. 2d 1303 La. 1979
State v. Mouton 366 So. 2d 1336 La. 1978
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
1976); and (2) whether the probative value of the evidence of the other crime outweighs its prejudicial effect, State v. Mitchell, supra ; State v. Jackson, supra
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. Mitchell 356 So. 2d 974 La. 1978
State v. Jackson, supra ; (on rehearing).
State v. Frentz 354 So. 2d 1007 La. 1978
: "* * * proof of system simply is not relevant in a case such as this one where there is absolutely no question that the accused was the person involved in both incidents.
State v. Holstead 354 So. 2d 493 La. 1977