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. Bell, 776 So. 2d 418.

22 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. David H. Brown (Parish of Lafourche) Convictions Affirmed; Death Sentences Reversed; Case Remanded For … La. 2021
    12/8/00), (citing George W. Pugh et al, Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law , Official Comments to Article 404(B), cmt.
  • State v. Bridges 251 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    12/8/00), ; State v. Small , 50,388 (La.
  • State v. Trung Le 243 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    12/8/00), , 421-22 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 279, 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kennedy 227 So. 3d 243 La. 2017
    12/8/00), ("The identity exception to inadmissibility under Article 404 B must be limited to cases in which the crimes are genuinely distinctive; otherwise, the rule may be swallowed up with identity evidence exceptions.”) (citing George W. Pugh et al, Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law, Official Comments to Article 404 B
  • State v. Copelin 206 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    12/8/00), (citing George W. Pugh et al, HANDBOOK ON LOUISIANA EVIDENCE LAW, Official Comments to Article 404(B), cmt.
  • State of Louisiana v. Phillip Wayne Raines La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/8/00), -22, this court noted: [t]he erroneous admission of other crimes evidence is subject to harmless error analysis under the standard set out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Raines 124 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Further, quoting State v. Bell, 99-3278, pp. 5-6 (La.12/8/00), -22 , this court noted: [t]he erroneous admission of other crimes evidence is subject to harmless error analysis under the standard set out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, p. 5 (La.12/8/00), .
  • State v. Higginbotham 122 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    In State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La.12/8/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s armed robbery conviction based upon the prosecutor’s introduction of evidence that the defendant had committed another armed robbery two months earlier.
  • State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, p. 5 (La.12/8/00), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Charles D. Washington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • State of Louisiana v. Theron J. Chaisson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    12/8/00), -22 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Chaisson 20 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    “The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty hfiverdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Bell, 99-3278, p. 6 (La.12/8/00), -22 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Delaney 965 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, pp. 5-6 (La.12/8/00), -22 .
  • State of Louisiana v. Samuel Delaney La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, pp. 5-6 (La.12/8/00), -22.
  • State v. Lee 964 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, pp. 4-8 (La.12/8/00), -23 , The balancing test of LSA-C.E.
  • State v. Roberson 929 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La.12/8/00), .
  • 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
    State v. Bell, 99-3278, pp. 5-6 (La.12/8/00), -22 .
  • State v. Jackson 808 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    In the subsequent opinion, State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La.12/8/00), , the supreme court affirmed our ruling that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of the earlier robbery.
  • State v. LeBlanc 788 So. 2d 1255 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
    In State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La 12/8/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the test for harmless error is "whether the reviewing court can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict rendered by this jury, who did in fact hear the inadmissible evidence, was surely unattributable to that highly prejudicial evidence ..."
  • State v. Jackson 778 So. 2d 1137 La. 2001
    This court held relator’s application pending a decision in State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La.12/8/2000), .