DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Germain, 433 So. 2d 110.

95 citing documents.

  • 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 of Louisiana v. Jarvis Keon Carey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    said that “prejudicial” when used in the context of limiting the introduction of other crimes evidence, means “only when it is unduly and unfairly prejudicial.” Germain, 433 So.2d at 118....
  • State v. Rose 949 So. 2d 1236 La. 2007
  • State v. Rose 925 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    In [ State v. ] Germain, [La.1983], the supreme court explained that "prejudicial," when used in the context of limiting the introduction of other crimes evidence, means "only when it is unduly andunfairly [sic] prejudicial."
  • State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1015 La. 2005
    In stating briefly in Cook that the trial court was without jurisdiction, this court likely had in mind the principle that prosecution must be validly instituted in a way that provides the accused with a sufficient understanding of the nature of the accusation so that he might properly defend himself, see, expressed at greater length in Straughan : There is no principle of procedural due process in criminal cases more clearly established than that the specific charge, and the chance to be heard
  • State v. Joseph 854 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
    But it is only unfairly prejudicial evidence that cannot be admitted, and as one court has noted, "unfair prejudice results from an aspect of the evidence other than its tendency to make the existence of a material fact more or less probable, e.g., that aspect of the evidence which makes conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise
  • State v. Delandro 818 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Hamilton 747 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    said that "prejudicial" when used in the context of limiting the introduction of other crimes evidence, means "only when it is unduly and unfairly prejudicial."
  • State v. Ignot 701 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Williams 672 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Ross 669 So. 2d 384 La. 1996
  • State v. Ham 652 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    art. 403 [footnote omitted]
  • State v. Wright 650 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Johnson 637 So. 2d 1033 La. 1994
  • State v. Davis 637 So. 2d 1012 La. 1994
    224 , 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984); -19 (La.1983); cert.
  • State v. Soler 636 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Ruiz 630 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Jackson 625 So. 2d 146 La. 1993
  • State v. Hanks 593 So. 2d 971 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Page 587 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Davis 562 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Romero 533 So. 2d 1264 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    15:445, Wigmore, supra; (2) there must be a real and genuine contested issue of intent at trial, State v. Germain, supra [ ]; (3) the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect, State v. Harris, supra [ ], State v. Prieur, supra [ (La.
  • State v. Thompson 532 So. 2d 1160 La. 1988
  • State v. Walters 514 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • State v. Smith 513 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Lee 510 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Hampton 482 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Johnson 482 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
    at n.1 (La.1983); (La.App.
  • State v. Jones 478 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Salgado 473 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Wilson 469 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Hayes 466 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    the Court found that a twenty-one year sentence imposed on a defendant who was convicted of manslaughter for beating a three year old to death was not excessive even though the defendant had no serious previous record and several witnesses were present at the sentencing hearing to vouch for defendant’s good
  • State v. Vinet 466 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
  • State v. Maillian 464 So. 2d 1071 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Kennedy 461 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Kelly 456 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Felo 454 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Scott 446 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Tullos 446 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    the court applied the holding of Miranda and of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Booker 444 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Celestine 443 So. 2d 1091 La. 1983
  • State v. Moore 440 So. 2d 134 La. 1983
  • State v. Daigle 440 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    15:481; State v. Prieur, supra.
  • State v. Kahey 436 So. 2d 475 La. 1983
    (on rehearing); State v. Harris, supra ; State v. Sutfield, supra ; State v. Prieur, supra .