Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Talbert, 416 So. 2d 97.

57 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Ezra J. Coutee, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State Of Louisiana v. Jerry Lavelle Vince La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
C. E. art. 404( B); ( La.
State v. Kennedy 227 So. 3d 243 La. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Alfred Mayo La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
See, and State v. Lewis, 98-672 (La.App.
State v. Mayo 165 So. 3d 436 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See, and State v. Lewis, 98-672 (La.App.
State v. Wilmot 142 So. 3d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Lewis, 98-672 (La.App.
State v. Kiger 128 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
See, and State v. Lewis, 98-672 (LaApp.
State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. JD 32 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. J.D. 32 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. J. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. D. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. D.T. 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. DT 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. H.J.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. H.J.L. 999 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. HJL 999 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Borden 986 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Arabie 982 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Gullette 975 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
State of Louisiana v. Leroy Waguespack La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Waguespack 939 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
State v. Harris, supra; (La.
State v. Pollard 760 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
the defendant argued that intent is not at issue since he admitted to having intercourse with the victim.
Distinguished State v. McArthur 719 So. 2d 1037 La. 1998
in which we held that the defendant's prior rape of the same victim was admissible to prove the "defendant's intent to have intercourse without the victim's consent."
State v. Mattox 704 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Langley 680 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Dunbar 657 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Wheeler 644 So. 2d 1089 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Gamble 631 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
: Generally, evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant is inadmissible due to "substantial risk of grave prejudice to the defendant".
State v. Code 627 So. 2d 1373 La. 1993
State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Therefore, is still effective.
State v. Long 590 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
This argument was addressed and squarely rejected in State v. Prestridge, supra
State v. McGuire 577 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Concerning other crimes evidence relevant to prove system or intent, -100 (La.
State v. Conway 556 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
State v. Driggers 554 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Thompson, supra .
State v. Tarleton 545 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
which states generally, evidence of other acts of misconduct is not admissible due to the substantial risk to the defendant of grave prejudice.
State v. Reaux 539 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Moore 534 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Since then, which is factually similar to the instant case.
State v. Daisy 528 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Creel 508 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
State v. Coolie, supra .
State v. Caillouet 496 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(on rehearing new trial ordered on other grounds); State v. Martin, [ ] supra; reversed on other grounds, 447 U.S. 3
State v. Robinson 485 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(on rehearing new trial ordered on other grounds).
State v. Steward 483 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In this connection the state may also question the defendant who testifies in his own behalf as to the details of a prior offense so as to show its true nature subject to the limita *158 tion that his rights may not be prejudiced by “expansive reference to details.” The trial judge has great discretion in controlling the state’s examination of defendant on the details of his prior convictions and his rulings will not be disturbed unless abusive.
State v. Lester 482 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Robinson 480 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Young 480 So. 2d 434 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 must be clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the
Phillips v. Plaquemines Parish School Bd. 465 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985