Cited by

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

176 citing documents.

State v. Jones 999 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Jones 975 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
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. Francis Loncar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
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. LONCAR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(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 the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.") (footnote omitted).
State v. Burbank 971 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
n the charged and uncharged conduct is required 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. Noten, 01-1818, p. 2 (La.6/25/01), ( Per Curiam )
State of Louisiana v. Todd Vincent Edwards La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Edwards 963 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Jarvis Keon Carey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
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. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
[7] (La.1981) (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 the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.") (
State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
[7] (La.1981) (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 the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.") (footnote omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Carlton G. Monceaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
" State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Monceaux 885 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
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 v. Brown 871 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
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 v. Rhea 868 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
een the charged and uncharged conduct is required 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. Noten, 01-1818, p. 2 (La.6/25/01), (per curiam) ().
State v. Phillips 853 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
(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 the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.") (footnote omitted).
State v. Joseph 854 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Mandosia 842 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99)
State v. Lee 844 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Marshall 841 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Noten, 01-1818, p. 2 (La.6/25/01), (per curiam) ().
State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
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 v. Powell 804 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
of the introduction of other crimes evidence, “when it is related and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the state could not have accurately presented its case without reference to it,” or “to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.”
State v. Noten 791 So. 2d 607 La. 2001
res gestae or integral *609 act evidence "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), (quoting State v. Haarala, 80-2668 (La.1981), ).
State v. Williams 779 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. Malvoisin 779 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Donald 775 So. 2d 1054 La. 2000
p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ("We have required a close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct to insure that the purpose served by admission *1059 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. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. Walker 775 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Mims 769 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Powell 746 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Colomb 747 So. 2d 1074 La. 1999
(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 the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.") (footnote omitted).
State v. Curtis 739 So. 2d 931 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
State v. Williams 735 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Davis 735 So. 2d 708 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Salter 733 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Pratt, 26,862 (La.App.2d Cir.4/5/95), , writ denied, 95-1398 (La.11/3/95), .
State v. Johnson 728 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Colomb 720 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Wafer 719 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Lopez 666 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the court concluded that the hardware store’s pipe yard was properly considered a “building-type structure” for purposes of La.R.S.
State v. Williams 660 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Coates 661 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Bordenave 660 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Dabney 633 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Evins 626 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Griffin 618 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Gay 616 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Washington 614 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Washington 614 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993