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. Sutfield, 354 So. 2d 1334.

78 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 of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Vail 150 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • Distinguished State v. Smith 96 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir.1991) to refute the foregoing proposition and argues that such evidence is never probative of a defendant’s intent to commit murder.
  • State v. Leday 97 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Merritt, supra, 04-204 at 14, 877 So.2d at 1087 .
  • State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
  • State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Cotton 980 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
  • State of Louisiana v. James Allen Drake, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    the supreme court held that in order to have relevance, the motive established by the other crime must be “factually peculiar to the victim and the charged crime,” rather than a general motive, such as an interest in monetary gain.
  • State v. Drake 903 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the supreme court held that in order to have relevance, the motive established by the other crime must be “factually peculiar to the victim and the charged crime,” rather than a general motive, such as an interest in monetary gain.
  • State v. Nguyen 888 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Merritt 877 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    -37 (La.1978), we recognized that evidence of other crimes may be admissible if the evidence is relevant to show motive, i.e., to show that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime he is charged with....
  • State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
    we held that the "motive" for a charged offense "must be more than a general one, such as gaining wealth....
  • State v. Brauner 782 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Schmidt 771 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    (evidence of heroin addiction inadmissible to show the motive for armed robbery); see also State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/94), (evidence that defendant told four people that he had killed the decedent because she accused him of raping her after they had sexual intercourse was admissib
  • State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
  • State v. Hills 761 So. 2d 516 La. 2000
  • State v. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    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. McArthur 719 So. 2d 1037 La. 1998
    (evidence of heroin addiction inadmissible to show the motive for armed robbery); see also State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La.10/17/94), (evidence that defendant told *1042 four people that he had killed the decedent because she accused him of raping her after they had sexual intercourse was ad
  • State v. Tyler 723 So. 2d 939 La. 1998
  • State v. Davis 702 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Foret 685 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    2151 , 64 L.Ed.2d 787 (1980), the court discussed motive: -37 (La.1978), we recognized that evidence of other crimes may be admissible if the evidence is relevant to show motive, i.e., to show that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime he is charged with.
  • State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    -37 (La.1978), we recognized that evidence of other crimes may be admissible if the evidence is relevant to show motive, I.e., to show that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime he is charged with.
  • State v. Johnson 670 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    State v. Abercrombie, [ ] supra
  • State v. Boudreaux 662 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    State v. Abercrombie, [ ], supra
  • State v. Long 643 So. 2d 132 La. 1994
    Nevertheless, even when it is otherwise "factually peculiar to the victim and the charged crime," motive cannot alone provide the basis for determining that one spouse has "concerned" himself or herself in the fraudulent acts of the other spouse simply by reason of their common interests arising from their relational status.
  • State v. Lee 637 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. DeRoche 629 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    State v. Abercrombie, [ ], supra; (La.
  • State v. Dixon 628 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Jamison 617 So. 2d 480 La. 1993
  • State v. Welch 615 So. 2d 300 La. 1993
    Nevertheless, in a case similar to the one at hand, stated that motive evidence may fall within the exceptions listed in La.C.E.
  • State v. Bailey 588 So. 2d 90 La. 1991
    That testimony does not establish the defendant's particular motive for committing the charged crime against the prosecutrix, and it otherwise fails to establish a pattern of committing sexual offenses against the same prosecutrix.
  • State v. McGuire 577 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    for the proposition that, in order to show motive, "the established motive must be factually peculiar to the victim and the charged crime."
  • State v. Lee 569 So. 2d 1038 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Magouirk 539 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Howard 520 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    State v. Abercrombie, supra
  • State v. Hereford 518 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Cupit 508 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hebert 507 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Charles 502 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    ” In the present case, the State failed to meet almost all of the prerequisites for the admissibility of this evidence.
  • State v. Boudreaux 503 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Johnson 496 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Smith 491 So. 2d 641 La. 1986
    796 , (1961); (2) whether there was an introduction of inadmissible "other crimes" evidence during the testimony of Earl Smith's neighbor, Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, 30-52; and La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Johnson 458 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Kelly 456 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Sanford 446 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984