Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Cupit, 179 So. 837.

52 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. George Cepriano La. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Troy Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Walker Stafford -Aka- Derrick Stafford La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Stafford 241 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Cupit , , 179 So.
State v. Kennedy 227 So. 3d 243 La. 2017
1993) ("[W]here the element of intent is regarded as an essential ingredient of the crime charged, it is proper to admit proof of similar but disconnected crimes to show intent with which the act charged was committed.” ( , 179 So.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Taylor 217 So. 3d 283 La. 2016
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Vail 150 So. 3d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Cupit, [ , 179 So.
State v. Kiger 128 So. 3d 552 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Hollins 123 So. 3d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Greenup 123 So. 3d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
*773 For instance, the Louisiana Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Day 119 So. 3d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Williams 91 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana | (¡Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Jones 85 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
strating that the defendant shot a man during a robbery just hours before the crime charged was admissible in a first-degree murder prosecution because evidence of the earlier shooting was relevant to show that the defendant intended to fire the gun at the *232 victim even though he claimed that the gun accidently discharged); ( , 179 So.
State v. Barnes 92 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Furthermore, even if the evidence in question was not admissible as res ges-tae, the evidence was admissible to prove defendant’s “lustful disposition towards children.” The Louisiana Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Williams 28 So. 3d 357 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The Louisiana Supreme Court first recognized a “lustful disposition” , 179 So.
State v. Schaller 15 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Jackson, 625 So.2d at 150 ( , 179 So.
State v. Wallace 949 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Morgan 830 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Specifically, in Jackson, supra, the Court noted “where the element of intent is regarded as an essential ingredient of the crime charged, it is proper to admit proof of similar but disconnected crimes to show intent with which the act charged was committed.” 625 So.2d at 150 ( , 179 So.
State v. Mills 806 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
625 So.2d at 150 ( , 179 So.
State v. Jones 794 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Kennedy, supra (Quoting *118 , 179 So.
State v. Kelly 791 So. 2d 1286 La. 2001
1993)("[W]here the element of intent is regarded as an essential ingredient of the crime charged, it is proper to admit proof of similar but disconnected crimes to show the intent with which the act charged was committed.")( , 179 So.
State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
625 So.2d at 150 ( , 179 So.
State v. Harris 781 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Particularly, the Miller court noted that it had first recognized the "lustful disposition" , 179 So.
State v. Malvoisin 779 So. 2d 73 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Morgan 779 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
In Miller, the court noted that it had first recognized the "lustful disposition" , 179 So.
State v. Zornes 774 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
The supreme court first recognized the "lustful disposition" , 179 So.
State v. Black 757 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. McArthur 719 So. 2d 1037 La. 1998
1981); State v. Jackson, supra ; , 179 So.
State v. Miller 718 So. 2d 960 La. 1998
State v. Davis 702 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
See Driggers, (where the prior acts occurred as much as twenty-six years prior to trial); Howard, (where the prior acts occurred eight years prior to trial); , 179 So.
State v. McArthur 702 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
State v. Cupit, supra [ , 179 So.
State v. Williams 672 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Johnson 670 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Although the sexual assaults about which the elder daughter testified occurred some eight years prior to the testimony, the finding in State v. Cupit, [ , 179 So.
State v. Ham 652 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Cupit, [ ] 179 So.
State v. Mamon 648 So. 2d 1347 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Broussard 649 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
More pertinent to the issues presented in this case, Louisiana courts have admitted prior sex crimes committed by the defendant under similar or analogous circumstances against a victim(s) other than the prosecutrix when the motive or plan of the defendant was at issue; , 179 So.
State v. Jackson 625 So. 2d 146 La. 1993
State v. Driggers 554 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Howard 520 So. 2d 1150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Moore 278 So. 2d 781 La. 1973
State v. Frezal 278 So. 2d 64 La. 1973
State v. Prieur 277 So. 2d 126 La. 1973
State v. Edgecombe 275 So. 2d 740 La. 1973
559 ; State v. Cupit, 1938, , 179 So.
State v. Crook 221 So. 2d 473 La. 1969
15:445, 15:446; , 179 So.
State v. Morris 157 So. 2d 728 La. 1963
See LRS 15:445 and 446, , 179 So.
State v. Morris 157 So. 2d 728 La. 1963
See LRS 15 :445 and 446, , 179 So.
State v. Palmer 80 So. 2d 374 La. 1955
State v. Alexander 45 So. 2d 83 La. 1950
Be this as it may, counsel for the State contend in this court that the evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing appellant’s , 179 So.