State v. Cosie
State v. Cosie, 295 So. 2d 165 (La. 1973).
The holding in the court’s own words
Upon reconsideration we conclude that our original opinion was not in error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- State v. Grant 295 So. 2d 168 La. 1973
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Prieur 277 So. 2d 126
Opinion text
ON REHEARING PER CURIAM. On original hearing, we reversed the conviction of these defendants because the State presented evidence of another crime and we found that it was not relevant to any matter properly before the Court. We granted rehearing because of the possibility that the evidence of that incident was not actually evidence of a crime and while irrelevant, perhaps nondamaging. Upon reconsideration we conclude that our original opinion was not in error. The proven conduct was at least evidence of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon' (R.S. 14:95), and it was presented by the State in an effort to prove an attempted armed robbery, for the State labeled the conduct as such in opening argument, (Transcript p. 80) and in closing argument (Transcript p. 309). Evidence of other crimes is not admissible in a criminal prosecution where it is not relevant to show system, intent or knowledge. State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La. 1973). In this case, it was not relevant and it was prejudicial. We therefore reinstate our original decree. The convictions and sentences are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Original decree reinstated. SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent.