Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Haarala, 398 So. 2d 1093.

176 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jose M. Sagastume La. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Nathan Glenn Pettit, Jr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. William Gary Ryder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
We have required a close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” (emphasis added); see also 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 190, p. 799 (4th ed., John William Strong, ed., 1992) (other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of t
State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Dwayne Piper A/K/A Marcus Piper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Piper 269 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/1/99), , 1076 (quoting State v. Haarala , , 1098 (La.1981) ).
State v. Drummer 245 So. 3d 93 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State of Louisiana v. John Drummer, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
In a related but distinct usage, res gestae was also used to describe “criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deed” which are admissible despite the “general prohibition against the use of other crimes evidence.”
State of Louisiana v. Kentrell D. McElroy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place’ ” State v. Colomb, 98- 2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. McElroy 241 So. 3d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/1/99), , 1076 (quoting State v. Haarala , , 1098 (La.1981) ).
State v. Copelin 206 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Farry 206 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Johnson 203 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 841 provides, “[a]n irregularity or error cannot be availed of after verdict unless it was objected to at the time of occurrence.” Second, the supreme court has specifically held, “[a]n alleged error in the jury instruction is not preserved for appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection.” (La.
State v. Murphy 194 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(an enclosed fenced area covered by a tin roof was a structure); State v. Noel, 08-0961 (La.App.
State v. Scott 184 So. 3d 2 La. 2015
2 In a related but distinct usage, res gestae was also used to describe “criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deed” which are admissible despite the “general prohibition against the use of other crimes evidence.”
State v. Jordan 145 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Taylor 123 So. 3d 256 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hankton 122 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
(“An alleged error in the jury instruction is not preserved for appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection.”); see also La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Napoleon 119 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Moran 135 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Acker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
the other crimes evidence “to insure that „the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.‟” State v. Colomb, 98- 2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Acker 111 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure *550 that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Girard 110 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Using the doctrine of “res ges-tae ” ‘the State complete^] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ State v. Taylor, 01-1638, p. 10 (La.1/14/03), (quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), , ).
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
en the charged and uncharged conduct” is required in order “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99)
State v. Preston 103 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Massey 97 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
d between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a *39 bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.”’ State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Napolean 87 So. 3d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
We have required a close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” (emphasis added); see also 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 190, p. 799 (4th ed., John William Strong, ed., 1992) (other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of t
State of Louisiana v. Michael Bushnell Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
We have required a close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” (emphasis added); see also 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 190, p. 799 (4th ed., John William Strong, ed., 1992) (other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of t
State v. Victor 82 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Snyder, 98-1078, p. 33 (La.4/14/99), -57
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), , ().
State v. Scott 48 So. 3d 1080 La. 2010
s, did not form integral components of the charged offenses such that “ ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence [was] not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State of Louisiana v. H. A., Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
ed conduct is required in order to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
se and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. HA, SR. 47 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
etween the charged and uncharged conduct is required in order to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Williams 47 So. 3d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
uired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Sumrall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
se and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Sumrall 34 So. 3d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Anderson 38 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
We have required a close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” (emphasis added); see also 1 McCormick on Evidence, § 190, p. 799 (4th ed., John William Strong, ed., 1992) (other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of t
State v. Murphy 28 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
ired between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State of Louisiana v. Theron J. Chaisson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
A “close connexity in time and location is essential to the exception because no notice of the state’s intention to introduce evidence of offenses which are part of the res gestae is required.”
State v. Chaisson 20 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
A “close connexity in time and location is essential to the exception because no notice of the state’s intention to introduce evidence of offenses which are part of the res gestae is required.”
State v. Harry 11 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Ridgley 7 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
tween the charged and uncharged conduct is required in order to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), , 1076 {).
State of Louisiana v. Clyde Milton Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
nse and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().