Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Code, 627 So. 2d 1373.

86 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Donald Alan Crooks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. James Bishop La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Kendarius Dewayne Sewell A/K/A Kendarius Sewell La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
at 2081; State v.Code, cert.
State Of Louisiana v. Randall Paul Burton La. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Charles R. Lane La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Francisco Jesus Vasquez-Ramirez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Id.; (noting that before a reviewing court declares an error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt it must find that the 10 verdict “ ‘actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error’ ”).
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
11/29/93), (a vicious serial killer was convicted of brutally killing four people, including one whom he nearly decapitated and another whom he made sit in the blood of her murdered daughter 68 before being killed herself, and he was found to have killed four other people as well).
State of Louisiana v. Vernon Mullins 188 So. 3d 164 La. 2016
As a result, such a violation cannot be held to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, because it resulted in the admission of the primary evidence proving an essential element of the crime, and we cannot say “the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” -85 (La.1993) (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Wells 209 So. 3d 709 La. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Jammicka Greene La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Greene 126 So. 3d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
at 2081 ; State v.Code, [cert.
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
Lee , 05-2098 at pp. 44-45, 976 So.2d at 139 (allowing the admission of such evidence “particularly when the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged crime and uncharged offenses is so peculiarly distinctive one must logically say they were the work of the same person”); 69 State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), ; see, (other crimes evidence admissible where it showed similar distinctive handcuff ligature, overkill, |,^predominant use of a knife, and need for domination
State v. Rains 101 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Odenbaugh 82 So. 3d 215 La. 2011
See State v. Holmes, 06-2988 (La.12/2/08), ; State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), ; State v. Blank, 04-0204 (La.4/11/07), ; State v. Howard, 98-0064 (La.4/23/99), ; State v. Gradley, 97-0641 (La.5/19/98), ; State v. Robertson, 97-0177 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Brown 77 So. 3d 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Pettus 68 So. 3d 21 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State v. Johnson 52 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Dressner 45 So. 3d 127 La. 2010
190 , 142 L.Ed.2d 155 (1998); State v.Code, ce rt.
State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996); cert.
State v. Lofton 992 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Anderson 996 So. 2d 973 La. 2008
on a Batson violation; remanded for new trial); State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), ; State v. Bridgewater, 00-1529 (La.1/15/02), ; State v. Jacobs, 99-1659 (La.6/29/01), ; State v. Howard, 98-0064 (La.4/23/99), ; State v. Gradley, 97-0641 (La.5/19/98), ; State v. Robertson, 97-0177 (La.3/4/98)
State v. Campbell 983 So. 2d 810 La. 2008
450 , 130 L.Ed.2d 359 (1994); cert.
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
See (other crimes evidence admissible where they show similar distinctive handcuff ligature, overkill, predominant use of a knife, and need for domination and control of the victims to the extent of moving them from room to room).
State v. Draughn 950 So. 2d 583 La. 2007
State v. Crockett 886 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Jones 880 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Johnson, 94-1379 (La.11/27/95), ; State v.Code, cert.
State v. Merritt 877 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Daniel Pickett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
11/30/94), -1287; -1385 (La.1993).
State v. Pickett 878 So. 2d 722 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Deal, supra (expert's "testimony regarding the defendant's intent was merely stating the obvious"); (emphasis in original); State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 18 (La.11/30/94), -1287 ; -1385 (La.1993).
State v. Allen 876 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
699 So.2d at 877 , (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Burbank 872 So. 2d 1049 La. 2004
State v. Bentley 844 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Vale, 96-2953, p. 2 (La.9/19/97), ; -85 (La.1993).
State v. Millien 845 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Irish 807 So. 2d 208 La. 2002
State v. Deal, supra (expert's "testimony regarding the defendant's intent was merely stating the obvious"); (emphasis in original); State v. Sanders, 93-0001, p. 18 (La.11/30/94), -1287 ; -1385 (La.1993).
State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
State v. Porter 806 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Vale, 96-2953, 97-0158, p. 2 (La.9/19/97), , citing State v.Code, -85 (La.1993) (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
in which the Louisiana Supreme Court said "it is reversible error for an expert to testify as to an ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt, even when couched in terms of a hypothetical situation."
State v. Deal 802 So. 2d 1254 La. 2001
State v. Lewis 800 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Sullivan v. Louisiana; State v. Vale, 96-2953, p. 2 (La.9/19/97), ; State v.Code, -85 (La.1993).
State v. Ducre 809 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Robinson 784 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Vale, 96-2953, p. 2 (La.9/19/97), ; State v.Code, -85 (La.1993), cert.
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
we set forth the restrictions under which other crimes evidence is admissible to show identity: where the issue of identity of the perpetrator is genuinely in dispute and the crimes involved are "so distinctive as to lead to the conclusion they were the work of the same person."
State v. Monroe 784 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App.
State v. Cosey 779 So. 2d 675 La. 2000
310 , 136 L.Ed.2d 227 (1996); cert.
State v. Wickem 759 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
5th Cir. 10/28/97), (citations omitted)
State v. Welch 760 So. 2d 317 La. 2000
Id.; (noting that before a reviewing court declares an error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt it must find that the verdict "`actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error'").
State v. Ballay 757 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
See State v. Tart, 93-0772 (La.2/9/96), ; cert.
State v. Hobley 752 So. 2d 771 La. 1999
Accordingly, we reverse defendant's sentence of death and remand the case for a second penalty phase hearing.