Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mosby, 595 So. 2d 1135.

114 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Steve Derozal Williams La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2026
State Of Louisiana v. Daniel Lee Wiggins La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Timothy H. Queen A/K/A Timothy Hugh Queen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. Margaret Camaille Stockstill La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Sterling Terrel Brown La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; cf. State v. Mosby, [].
State of Louisiana v. Doyle Shannon La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Darrell Clark La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
State Of Louisiana v. De'ondric Clarks La. 2024
It is well settled that a trial court’s “determinations regarding relevancy and admissibility should not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Willie Derrick Jackson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. Kevin Abimael Guzman La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Jerald Dewayne Smith La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Joseph Andrew St. Romain, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Jerrell Alexander La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Donald E. Tate La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State Of Louisiana v. Rusty Willie La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Travionne Bradley La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
State Of Louisiana v. Celito C. Jackson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
State Of Louisiana v. Kirby Thomas La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State Of Louisiana v. James Matthew Cole La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Landrieu 274 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Mosby , , 1139 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Elvin Bryant Jinks, Jr. -Aka- Elvin Jinks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The fourth circuit noted: 10 The Louisiana Supreme Court opined that “relevancy and admissibility are discretion calls for the trial judge,” which “should not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Williams 265 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) ; State v. Mosby , (La.
State v. Duhon 270 So. 3d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See State v. Mosby , , 1139 (La.
State v. Klein 252 So. 3d 973 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 10/6/10), , 229 (citing State v. Mosby , (La.
State v. Nixon 250 So. 3d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ; , 1139 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Kyvonte Latrell Eaglin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Eaglin 239 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Williams 240 So. 3d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Mosby , , 1139 (La.1992).
State of Louisiana v. Corlious C. Dyson AKA Corlious Corall Dyson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Dyson 220 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Roman Ford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Ford 217 So. 3d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Barthelemy 216 So. 3d 809 La. 2017
State v. Smith 192 So. 3d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
“[D]etermina-tions regarding the relevancy and admissibility should not be overturned - absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State v. Stokes 175 So. 3d 419 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Wesley James Monroe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
the supreme court discussed relevant evidence when considering the admissibility of other crimes evidence as follows: Application of [La.Code Evid.]
State v. Monroe 165 So. 3d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the supreme court discussed relevant evidence when considering the admissibility of other crimes evidence as follows: Application of [La.Code Evid.]
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 10/2/13), (-40 (La.1992)) (“Generally, a trial court’s rulings on evidentiary issues will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”); Magee , 11-0574, p. 52, 103 So.3d at 321 (“The district court is accorded great discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, rul
State v. Gorman 166 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marcelin 116 So. 3d 928 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
State v. Jackson 115 So. 3d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Fernandez, 50 So.3d at 229 ; La.
State v. Thomas 106 So. 3d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
State v. Joyner 107 So. 3d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)
State v. Guity 97 So. 3d 1113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Lionel Paul Dugas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1 Cir.1991), affirmed, (1992).
State v. Brown 86 So. 3d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Laster, 44,870 (La.App.2d Cir.02/03/10), .
State v. Friday 73 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Olivieri, 2003-563, p. 19 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
udence has recognized that the rule espoused in Vigee is likewise subject to a balancing standard; “when ‘prejudice to the prosecution is balanced against defendant’s constitutional right to present relevant evidence in support of his defense, [the] balance should be weighed in favor of admissibility in those cases in which the prejudice is minimal.’” n. 5 (La.1992)(quoting State v. 8 Vaughn, ).