Cited by

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

139 citing documents.

State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 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. Golden 95 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
art. 404(B)(1) generally bars admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant, it does expressly permit the introduction of evidence of other crimes “when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 1 (La.10/1/99), .
State v. Massey 97 So. 3d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
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 *39 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. Dauzart 89 So. 3d 1214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Under the res gestae exception, evidence of another crime is 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 the other crime.” State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), .
State of Louisiana v. Terry G. Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Napolean 87 So. 3d 127 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. Besse 83 So. 3d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 2/23/04) , (citing 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. Marlowe 81 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
| MThe Louisiana Supreme Court explained the res gestae and integral act evidence in State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -1076 , vis-á-vis the State seeking to introduce evidence, as follows: This Court has long approved of the introduction of other crimes evidence, both under the provisions of former R.S.
State v. Roberson 81 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colornb, 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. Barnes 92 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), .
State of Louisiana v. Michael Bushnell Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
5 Cir. 2/23/04) , (citing State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), , quoting Old Chief v. United *258 States, 519 U.S. 172, 187 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
: 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. White 57 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colomb, 1998-2813 (La.10/01/99), ; State v. Coates, 27,287 (La.App.2d Cir.09/27/95), , writ denied, 1995-2613 (La.02/28/96), .
State v. Scott 48 So. 3d 1080 La. 2010
f the search warrant at the Hailey Street address, did not form integral components of the charged offenses such that “ ‘the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence [was] 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 of Louisiana v. H. A., Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
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 of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
d 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. HA, SR. 47 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Youngblood 48 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/01/99), ; State v. Coates, 27,287 (La.App.2d Cir.09/27/95), , writ denied, 95-2613 (La.02/28/96), .
State v. Blow 46 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
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. Williams 47 So. 3d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
m. 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 of Louisiana v. Michael D. Sumrall La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
d 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. Sumrall 34 So. 3d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Anderson 38 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
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. Davis 30 So. 3d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 404 B(l) in State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -1076 , as follows This Court has long approved of the introduction of other crimes evidence, both under the provisions of former R.S.
State v. Murphy 28 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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. Harry 11 So. 3d 1244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
10/1/99), (per curiam) (citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Woods 4 So. 3d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
tegral act evidence to insure that “the purpose served by admission of other crimes evidence is not to depict the defen *253 dant 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. Noten, 2001-1818 (La.6/25/01), -09 (per curiam) (quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ).
State v. Ridgley 7 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
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), , 1076 {).
State of Louisiana v. Clyde Milton Jones La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
nd 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. Jones 999 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
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. Hotard 994 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Jones 975 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
78 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 of Louisiana v. Francis Loncar La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -76, the supreme court stated: This Court has long approved of the introduction of other crimes evidence, both under the provisions of former R.S.
State v. LONCAR 970 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
In State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 3-4 (La.10/1/99), -76 , the supreme court stated: This Court has long approved of the introduction of other crimes evidence, both under the provisions of former R.S.
State v. LaGarde 970 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
the state might somehow structure its case to avoid any mention of the uncharged act or conduct, but whether doing so would deprive the state's 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 (La.10/1/99), , quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Alsup 968 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
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 of Louisiana v. Jarvis Keon Carey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
10/1/99), -76, the supreme court explained the res gestae or “integral act” evidentiary doctrine: This Court has long approved of the introduction of other crimes evidence, both under the provisions of former R.S.
State of Louisiana v. Paul Roberts, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
See also State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 1-2 (La.10/1/99)
State v. Roberts 947 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
See also State v. Colomb, 98-2813, pp. 1-2 (La.10/1/99), .
State of Louisiana v. Mitchell Pat Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Mayeux 949 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), ().
State v. Galliano 945 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
" 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. Reichard 935 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
f narrative completeness without which the state’s case would lose 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.’ ” Taylor ; 01-1638 at pp. 10-11 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d at 741 -42 (quoting State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 4 (La.10/1/99), (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Robert S. Willis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Willis 915 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Integral act evidence is evidence that 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. Davis 911 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 2/23/04) , (citing State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), , quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Baker 902 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
art. 404(B)(1); State v. Colomb, 98-2813 (La.10/1/99), ; State v. Coates, 27,287 (La.App.
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by