DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Miller, 718 So. 2d 960.

63 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremy Walker La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
  • John David Dean v. Christie Lynn Burkeen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
  • State v. Bibbins 258 So. 3d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    9/9/98), , 962 ("the court must, at the request of the defendant, offer a limiting instruction to the jury at the time the evidence is introduced").
  • State v. Ross 207 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    9/9/98), (other crimes evidence was less serious than charged crimes and would “not unduly inflame the jury.”).
  • State v. Thomassie 206 So. 3d 311 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    9/9/98), (finding that although “patently prurient and highly inappropriate,” the “defendant’s statement to his neighbor’s child that he had seen her naked in his bedroom with her arms and legs open [was] admissible to show his intent to molest the victim of the charged offense and to show that the molestation was not an
  • State v. Robertson 183 So. 3d 1287 La. 2016
    See, e.g., State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), (“[T]he court must, at the request of the defendant, offer a limiting instruction to the jury at the time the evidence is introduced.
  • State v. Fair 182 So. 3d 1238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Dale 180 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), State v. Jackson, supra, at 146.
  • State v. Hunter 176 So. 3d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See e.g., State v. Miller, 98-0301, p. 4 (La.9/9/98), ; State v. Keys, 12-1177, pp. 18-19 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 3-4 (La.9/9/98)
  • State v. Stevens 140 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 3-4 (La.9/9/98), .
  • Jones v. Chatelain 148 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    24 Furthermore, it is well-known and documented that sexual abuse of children is extremely difficult to detect, because “the offense often takes place in secret, the victim is young, vulnerable, and reluctant to testify, and there is often no physical or other evidence the abuse took place.” Folse v. Folse, 98-1976 (La.6/29/99), , quoting State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Keys 125 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Miller, 98-301, p. 5 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Id.; see also, State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 3-4 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Garcia 108 So. 3d 1 La. 2012
    State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 3-4 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    art. 404 B(l); State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 3-4 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. GRH 10 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. G. R. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    9/9/98), 5 Defendant asserts that since his intent was not at issue, evidence of other crimes was not admissible.
  • State Ex Rel. Dg 11 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), (where evidence of uncharged misconduct is admissible to show "lustful disposition").
  • State ex rel. D.G. 11 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), (where evidence of uncharged misconduct is admissible to show “lustful disposition”).
  • State v. Ridgley 7 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Cotton, 00-850, p. 12 (La.1/29/01), , reh’g granted in part for clarification, 00-850 (La.4/20/01), (relying on State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , explaining Prieur).
  • State v. Colbert 990 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    As per State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the factor listed in art. 404 B(1) which the State intends to prove through the use of other crimes evidence must either be an element of the crime charged, be at issue in the case, or have some independent relevance to the case.
  • State v. Crandell 987 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the supreme court observed: Several other statutory and jurisprudential rules also play a role in determining the admissibility of such evidence.
  • State v. Mathieu 980 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    As per State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the factor listed in art. 404 B(1) which the State intends to prove through the use of other crimes evidence must either be an element of the crime charged, be at issue in the case, or have some independent relevance to the case.
  • State v. Hotard 975 So. 2d 16 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 11-14 (La.9/9/98), -67 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a "prurient and highly inappropriate statement" by the defendant to his neighbor's child was relevant to show the defendant's lustful disposition toward young girls.
  • State v. Parker 963 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.09/09/98), , the supreme court discussed the additional concerns in admitting other crimes evidence: Several other statutory and jurisprudential rules also play a role in determining the admissibility of such evidence.
  • Cls v. Gjs 953 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State of Louisiana v. W.D.F., Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    9/9/98), the trial court must, at a defendant’s request, offer a limiting instruction to the jury.
  • State v. Williams 950 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.09/09/98), , the supreme court discussed the additional concerns in similar cases: Several other statutory and jurisprudential rules also play a role in determining the admissibility of such evidence.
  • State v. Ellis 880 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    4th Cir.09/06/00), , writ denied, 00-2815 (La.09/14/01), (mother's ex-husband while babysitting); State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.09/09/98), (uncle while babysitting); State v. Cook, 32,110 (La.App.2d Cir.06/16/99), (uncle while visiting at child's home); State v. Free, supra (uncle while girls were at his home and place of employment); (La.App.
  • State v. Merritt 877 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    In State v. Miller, 98-301 (La.9/9/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the applicable law pertaining to the admissibility of other crimes evidence as follows (footnote added): Article 404(B) of the Louisiana Code of Evidence provides the basic rule regarding the use of evidence of "other crimes, wrongs or acts" at trial.
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State v. Brown 874 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    See State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Lyles 858 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    and State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , we find, that the evidence of each crime in the instant case would have been admissible at the trial of the other.
  • State v. Fortino 837 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    See: State v. Hills, 99-1750 (La.5/16/00), ; State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Quiambao 833 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    art. 403; State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Williams 833 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Miller, 98-301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Morgan 830 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The trial court found the testimony admissible, noting that State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , held that “lustful disposition” evidence may be relevant to prove the element of specific intent.
  • State v. Richard 807 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set out the applicable law pertaining to the admissibility of other acts evidence as follows.
  • State v. Aleman 809 So. 2d 1056 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    See: State v. Miller, 98-0301 *1065 (La.9/9/98), ; State v. Cotton, 00-0850 (La.1/29/01), , reh'g granted in part, 00-0850 (La.4/20/01), .
  • State v. Mills 806 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    The trial court found the testimony admissible, noting that State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , held that "lustful disposition" evidence may be relevant to prove the element of specific intent.
  • State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court set out the law pertaining to the admissibility of other acts by a defendant as follows: Article 404(B) of the Louisiana Code of Evidence provides the basic rule regarding the use of evidence of "other crimes, wrongs or acts" at trial.
  • State v. Morgan 791 So. 2d 100 La. 2001
    See State v. Miller, 98-0301, p. 12 (La.9/9/98), ("Because specific intent is an element of the crime charged and because the [patently prurient and highly inappropriate] statement made to the unrelated victim is independently relevant to prove this intent, the evidence is admissible under La.C.E.
  • State v. LeBlanc 788 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    art. 404(B), State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , and State v. Maise, 99-0734 (La.App.
  • State v. Blanchard 786 So. 2d 701 La. 2001
    See State v. Miller, 98-0301, pp. 11-12 (La.9/9/98), -67 .
  • State v. Gibson 785 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    In State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), , the Louisiana *220 Supreme Court set out the applicable law pertaining to the admissibility of other acts by a defendant, stating: Article 404(B) of the Louisiana Code of Evidence provides the basic rule regarding the use of evidence of "other crimes, wrongs or acts" at trial.
  • State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
    Because the evidence sought to be introduced here is not independently relevant under any of the permitted purposes recited in Article 404(B), such as proof of motive, intent, or identity, we find that the court of appeal was correct in applying Article 404(B) of the Louisiana Code of Evidence and our decision in State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), .
  • State v. Barling 779 So. 2d 1035 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    and State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98); .
  • State v. Cotton 778 So. 2d 569 La. 2001
    State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), ; LA.CODE EVID.
  • State v. Harris 781 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    State v. Miller, 98-0301, p. 4 (La.9/9/98), , citing Pugh, Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law 1996, 284.