Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hatcher, 372 So. 2d 1024.

125 citing documents.

State v. Tyler 723 So. 2d 939 La. 1998
State v. Mattox 704 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Eisbruckner 688 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Lewis 687 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Pittman 683 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
a case recently reaffirmed in State v. Code, supra, the Louisiana Supreme Court fully discussed the requirements for admissibility of other crimes evidence under the system or modus operandi exception: In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence must meet several tests: (1) there must be
State v. Langley 680 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Boudreaux 662 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Scales 655 So. 2d 1326 La. 1995
we recognized that hearsay evidence offered by the state at a pretrial Prieur hearing "adequately informed defendant of the nature and factual content of the other-crime evidence sought to be introduced by the state."
State v. Lee 637 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
this Court discussed fully the requirements for admissibility of other crimes evidence under the modus operandi exception.
State v. Dixon 628 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Code 627 So. 2d 1373 La. 1993
State v. Hawkins 633 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Talbert , explained 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 defendan
State v. Tyler 619 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Carr 620 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d at 130 .
State v. Wisinger 618 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Hayes 614 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
” Therefore, under State v. Ester [ ] supra, other crimes evidence is admissible to prove identity under La.R.S.
State v. Tucker 602 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
On appeal defendant, -1027 (La.1979), contends that the trial court erred in allowing Joseph Rawls to give hearsay testimony at the Prieur hearing.
State v. Fink 601 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Hanks 593 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Martin 558 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Bennett 549 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Wiklund 546 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Tarleton 545 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Moore 534 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
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; (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and the uncharge
State v. Taplette 519 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Gray, supra; (La.App.
State v. Nelson 518 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. McDaniel 515 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Gibson 511 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Specifically, Gibson argues that the trial court committed reversible error by granting the State's request at the Prieur hearing to allow evidence of the attempted aggravated rape to be introduced when the five requirements for admitting this "other crimes" were not met.
State v. Parker 506 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Walder 504 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Gray 502 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Charles 502 So. 2d 1095 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
ry, testimony may be offered of such acts, conduct or declarations of the accused as tend to establish such knowledge or intent and where the offense is one of a system, evidence is admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, and the commission of similar offenses for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge and intent, but not to prove the offense charged.” the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the requirements for the admissibility of other-crimes evidence under the modus operandi or syst
State v. Moore 498 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
on rehearing, set forth a test for the admissibility of extraneous offense evidence.
State v. Yochim 496 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Olsen 496 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Trigueros 485 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
It only requires that, before such evidence is introduced the trial court must determine, on the basis of the showing requisite for it to do so at a hearing outside the presence of the jury, that the extraneous acts are probative of a real issue and that their probative value exceeds their prejudicial effect.” See also
State v. Robinson 480 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
****** “ State v. Kahey, and State v. Hatcher, [ ], set forth guidelines for determining the admissibility of other crimes evidence.
State v. Hamilton 478 So. 2d 123 La. 1985
State v. Lee 465 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Johnson 464 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
[ ], the Louisiana Supreme Court fully discussed the requirements for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under the modus operandi or system exception: In order to be admissible the extraneous offense evidence must meet several tests: (1) there
State v. Hoyt 464 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Berry 459 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Lewis 452 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Kelly 456 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
See State v. Middlebrook, supra
State v. Casimier 454 So. 2d 1199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Garay 453 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Baker 452 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984