Cited by

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

176 citing documents.

State, in Interest of Mss 612 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Brewington 601 So. 2d 656 La. 1992
State v. Brewington 587 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Willis 577 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Mitchell 572 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Ashley 569 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
in which defense counsel claimed the court erred in failing to grant a continuance because counsel was told that some other case would be tried before his client's case.
State v. Roberts 569 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Hall 558 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Williams 553 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Court defined and explained the “close connexity” requirement of the res gestae rule as follows: “The general prohibition against the use of other crimes evidence does not bar admission of criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deed, (citation omitted) In Louisiana, such acts are denomi
State v. Hall 549 So. 2d 373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Jackson 550 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Tarleton 545 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Guillory 540 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Magouirk 539 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Walker 540 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Rexrode 536 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Knippers 535 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Bates 536 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Clark 529 So. 2d 1353 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Caillouet 528 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Broussard 527 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Arcement 514 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Hebert 507 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the court stated: “As a general rule, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show that the accused is a bad man and thus more likely to have committed the crime.
State v. Zihlavsky 505 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Boudreaux 503 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The general law applicable to other crimes evidence, and the res gestae exception thereto, as follows: As a general rule, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show that the accused is a bad man and thus more likely to have committed the crime.
State v. Johnson 496 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
our supreme court stated that: As a general rule, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show that the accused is a bad man and thus more likely to have committed the crime.
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. Bradley 490 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Martin 486 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Taylor 483 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Williams 479 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Vanderpool 476 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Huntley 474 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Keys 468 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
“The general prohibition against the use of other crimes evidence does not bar admission of criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deed.”
State v. Hall 464 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Cochran 463 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Sensley 460 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Hall 457 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Williams 454 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
A : “The general prohibition against the use of other crimes evidence does not bar admission of criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deed.
State v. Handley 453 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Bailey 452 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
This court held that these items were immediate concomitants of the crime with which defendant was charged and properly admitted by the trial court
State v. Wall 452 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Jackson 450 So. 2d 621 La. 1984
State v. Franklin 449 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. James 447 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Sanford 446 So. 2d 1381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
as follows: As a general rule, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of other criminal acts of the accused unless the evidence is substantially relevant for some purpose other than to show that the accused is a bad man and thus more likely to have committed the crime.
State v. Williams 445 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 440 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Broadway 440 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983