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. Monroe, 364 So. 2d 570.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. Gasser 275 So. 3d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    716 , 133 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996) ; State v. Monroe , , 573 (La.
  • State of Louisiana Versus Ronald Gasser La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
    art. 404(B) as “a non-exhaustive list of instances wherein such evidence may be admissible.” 18-KA-531 24 (La.
  • State v. Colby 244 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    See State v. Reed , supra (the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's batteries of his previous girlfriends to show intent); State v. Galliano , supra (the trial court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant broke another baby's arm while pulling the baby from its car seat to show absence of mistake or accident); State v. Monroe , (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Chaddrick D. Mayes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mayes 154 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    quoting from 2 Wigmore on Evidence, § 302 (3d.
  • State v. Vail 150 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    quoting from 2 Wigmore on Evidence, § 302 (3d.1940), the State argued that the “ ‘doctrine of chances’ eliminates the element of innocence by multiplying instances of the same results until it is perceived that this element cannot explain them all.” Defendant claimed that no action on his part caused h
  • State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    preme Court held: The evidence of the prior incident in which the victim sustained a broken femur when defendant pulled him forcefully from his car seat has probative value to show the improbability that the defendant acted without the requisite intent, or accidentally, when he, according to his own admission, shook the victim in the instant situation “to get his attention.” See, (under the doctrine of chances, likelihood that defendant was required to kill twice in self-defense on successive ni
  • State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Taylor, 37,356 (La.App.2d Cir.9/26/03), , writ denied, 03-3141 (La.3/19/04), ; State v. Carter, 97-1096 (La.App.
  • State v. Reed 1 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Taylor, 37,356 (La.App.2d Cir.9/26/03), , unit denied, 03-3141 (La.3/19/04), ; State v. Carter, 97-1096 (La.App.
  • State v. Galliano 839 So. 2d 932 La. 2003
    See, (under doctrine of chances, likelihood that defendant was required to kill twice in self defense on successive nights at the same location was so remote that evidence of the other killing was admissible to negate self defense and lack of intent).
  • State v. Tilley 767 So. 2d 6 La. 2000
    (other crimes evidence admissible to show requisite specific intent for second degree murder when defendant claimed killing resulted from self-defense and insanity); (La.App.
  • State v. Brooks 541 So. 2d 801 La. 1989
  • State v. Romero 533 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    15:445, Wigmore, supra; (2) there must be a real and genuine contested issue of intent at trial, State v. Germain, supra [ ]; (3) the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect, State v. Harris, supra [ ], State v. Prieur, supra [ (La.
  • State v. Smith 513 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hebert 507 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • 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. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Being relevant, such evidence is admissible, provided that there is a real and genuinely contested issue of intent at trial, State v. Kahey, supra; and further, that the prejudicial effect of such evidence is outweighed by its probative value.
  • State v. Sanford 446 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Craddock 435 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
    15:445, Wigmore, supra; (2) there must be a real and genuine contested issue of intent at trial, State v. Germain, supra ; (3) the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect, State v. Harris, supra , State v. Prieur, supra .
  • State v. Germain 433 So. 2d 110 La. 1983
  • State v. Connor 431 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    and cases cited therein.
  • State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 2 La. 1982
  • State v. Belgard 410 So. 2d 720 La. 1982
  • State v. McKeever 407 So. 2d 662 La. 1981
  • State v. Haarala 398 So. 2d 1093 La. 1981
  • State v. Jones 395 So. 2d 751 La. 1981
  • State v. Baylis 388 So. 2d 713 La. 1980
  • State v. Harris 383 So. 2d 1 La. 1980
    However for such evidence to be admissible to prove intent, there must be a real and genuine contested issue of intent at trial, and the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.