Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Colomb, 747 So. 2d 1074.

139 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Cortney Fitzgerald La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
10/1/99), (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186, 117 S. Ct. 644, 653, 136 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1997).
State of Louisiana v. Charles L. Williams La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Willie H. Battle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
10/1/99), -1076; State v. Neveaux, 23-477 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Viusqui J. Perez-Espinosa La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Jerman Neveaux La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Michael C. Adams AKA "Shawty Mike" La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. William Gary Ryder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
10/1/99), the supreme court found the challenged evidence was an integral part of the act which was the subject of the proceeding.
State of Louisiana v. Daniel White -Aka- Daniel Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
10/1/99), : The res geaste [sic] or integral act doctrine thus “reflects the fact that making a case with testimony and tangible things not only satisfies the formal definition of an offense, but tells a colorful story with descriptive richness.” Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172
State Of Louisiana v. Daniel T. Hamilton La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
10/ 1/ 99), ( per curiam).
State of Louisiana Versus Adam Littleton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
10/1/99), ) quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187, 117 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana Versus Steven Rodney La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State v. Acevedo 273 So. 3d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana Versus Marvin S. Acevedo La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Dwayne Piper A/K/A Marcus Piper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
State v. Piper 269 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
10/1/99), , 1076 (quoting State v. Haarala , , 1098 (La.1981) ).
State v. Brown 256 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
10/01/99), ; State v. Jones, supra.
State v. Garcie 242 So. 3d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Obrien 242 So. 3d 1254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/1/99), , 1075-1076 ( , 350 (La.1980) ).
State of Louisiana v. Jermaine Christopher Obrien AKA Jermaine Christopher O'Brien La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
y spontaneous utterances and declarations made before or after the commission of the crime, but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.” State v. Colomb, 98–2813, pp. 3–4 (La.10/1/99), –1076 ().
State of Louisiana v. Kentrell D. McElroy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
tion is required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place’ ” State v. Colomb, 98- 2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. McElroy 241 So. 3d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
10/1/99), , 1076 (quoting State v. Haarala , , 1098 (La.1981) ).
State v. Brown 235 So. 3d 1314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/1/99), ); Massey, 71 So.3d at 373 (citing State v. Taylor, 01-1638 (La.
State v. Mosley 223 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Maize 223 So. 3d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Young 216 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
10/1/99, 4), , explained: [Evidence of the defendant’s marijuana possession contemporaneous with the police discovery of the firearm in his truck provided not only narrative completeness to a case which began as a narcotics stop but also formed an integral part of the context facts in which jurors evaluated the state’s case—
State v. Joseph 208 So. 3d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Farry 206 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. William Chester Farry Jr. AKA William Chester Farry AKA William C. Farry AKA William … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
se and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Murphy 206 So. 3d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Small 189 So. 3d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/01/99), .
State v. Jones 188 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), ; State v. Coates, 27,287 (La.App.2d Cir.9/27/95), , writ denied, 95-2613 (La.2/28/96), .
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 7/23/14), , quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -76 .
State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The res géstae doctrine holds that otherwise inadmissible evidence (hearsay, for example) may be admissible "when it is related and intertwined with the charged offense to such an extent that the state could not have accurately presented its case without reference to it.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99)
State v. Carter 171 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
the State might somehow structure its case to avoid any mention of the uncharged act or conduct but whether doing so would deprive its case of narrative momentum and cohesiveness, “ ‘with power not only to support conclusions but to sustain the willingness of jurors to draw the inferences, whatever they may be, necessary to reach an honest verdict.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 4 (La.10/1/99), .
State v. Rapp 161 So. 3d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 7/23/14), , quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -76 (emphasis added.).
State v. Bourgeois 147 So. 3d 163 La. 2014
The absence of the evidence of the victim’s death would deprive the state of its narrative momentum and cohesiveness “with power not only to support conclusions but to sustain the willingness of jurors to draw the inferences, whatever they may be, necessary to reach an honest verdict.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Falkins 146 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
uding that the exception includes “not only spontaneous utterances and declarations made before or after the commission of the crime, but also testimony of witnesses and police officers pertaining to what they heard or observed before, during, or after the commission of the crime if the continuous chain of events is evident under the circumstances.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -1076 ().
State v. Jordan 145 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
A close proximity in time and location is required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Norah 131 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
“[Thus, it is] not simply whether the state might somehow structure its case to avoid any mention of the uncharged act or conduct but whether doing so would deprive its case of narrative momentum and eohesiveness.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 4 (La.10/1/99), .
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
151 , -34 (1967); State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), .
State v. Jones 120 So. 3d 248 La. 2013
State v. Columb, 98-2813 (La 10/1/99), .
State v. Napoleon 119 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 4 (La.10/1/99), .
State v. Moran 135 So. 3d 677 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), ; State v. Preston, supra.
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Acker, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
18 required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that „the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.‟” State v. Colomb, 98- 2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Acker 111 So. 3d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
e proximity in time and location is |19required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure *550 that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Girard 110 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Using the doctrine of “res ges-tae ” ‘the State complete^] the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ State v. Taylor, 01-1638, p. 10 (La.1/14/03), (quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), , ).
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
A close proximity in time and location is required between the charged offense and the other crimes evidence “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’ ” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“[A] close connexity between the charged and uncharged conduct” is required in order “to insure that ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defendant as a bad man, but rather to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99)
State v. Preston 103 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), .