Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. LaFleur, 398 So. 2d 1074.

41 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Samuel M. Hunter Jr La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
App. 4 Cir. 11/30/11), ().
State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 11/30/11), , 46, quoting State v. Lafleur , , 1080 (La.1981).
State v. Lyons 241 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
See State v. Lafleur , , 1080 (La.
State v. Marshall 128 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Rubens 83 So. 3d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
“In order to avoid the unfair inference that a defendant committed a particular crime simply because he is a man of criminal [bad] character, evidence of the commission of other crimes [bad acts] is inadmissible unless the evidence has an independent relevancy besides simply showing a criminal disposition.”
State of Louisiana v. Lester Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Scott 20 So. 3d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lawson 1 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Rose, (La.2/22/07), 949 So2d.
State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Cotton 980 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Rose 949 So. 2d 1236 La. 2007
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
Other jurisprudentially recognized exceptions include other crimes evidence introduced to show motive, (La.
State v. Walker 772 So. 2d 218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Hills 761 So. 2d 516 La. 2000
State v. Lockett 754 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Hills 737 So. 2d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Van Winkle 701 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
in which the Supreme Court held that evidence of other crimes may be independently relevant to show motive, or to show that the defendant had a reason to commit the crime with which he was charged.
State v. Albert 697 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Crochet 693 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Glynn 653 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Broussard 649 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Additional exceptions established by Louisiana courts include other crimes evidence introduced to show motive, [2] , State v. Dowdy, 217 La.
State v. Michel 633 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Robertson 630 So. 2d 1278 La. 1994
involved the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in an atrocious, cruel or heinous manner.
State v. Hawkins 633 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Parker 625 So. 2d 1364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Tyler 619 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
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. Anderson 554 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Andrews 527 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
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. Clark 492 So. 2d 862 La. 1986
State v. Davis 474 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
-259 (La.1983); , (La.1982)
State v. Watson 449 So. 2d 1321 La. 1984
involved the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in an atrocious, cruel or heinous manner.
State v. Johnson 438 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. West 437 So. 2d 256 La. 1983
See, e.g., State v. *259 Heard
State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
Other jurisprudentially recognized exceptions include other crimes evidence introduced to show motive, State v. *488 Lafleur, State v. Sutfield, supra , State v. Dowdy, 217 La.
State v. Narcisse 426 So. 2d 118 La. 1983
An aggravating circumstance was not an essential element of first degree murder at the time of the instant defense ( although armed robbery was one of the aggravating circumstances essential to a death sentence under C.Cr.P.
State v. Davis 411 So. 2d 2 La. 1982
State v. Heard 408 So. 2d 1247 La. 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by