Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dean, 625 So. 2d 146.

197 citing documents.

State v. Gatlin 164 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Porter 151 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Altenberger 139 So. 3d 510 La. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Phillip Wayne Raines La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
12/7/07), the second circuit noted: Admissibility of evidence of these prior acts has been succinctly set forth in State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), and the state is required to do the following when it seeks to present such evidence: (1) comply with the notice requirements and limiting instructions set out in State v. Prieur, [] supra; (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and
State v. Raines 124 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 4/4/07), , writ denied, 07-1193 (La.12/7/07), , the second circuit noted: Admissibility of evidence of these prior acts has been succinctly set forth in State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), , and the state is required to do the following when it seeks to present such evidence: (1) comply with the notice requirements and limiting instructions set out in State v. Prieur, [ ] supra; (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and was committed by the defenda
State v. Davis 128 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Marshall 128 So. 3d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Snyder 128 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Beaulieu 122 So. 3d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Day 119 So. 3d 810 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Davis 115 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), .
State v. Hugle 104 So. 3d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
10 “Generally, evidence of other acts of misconduct is not admissible” because it creates the risk that the defendant will be convicted of the present offense simply because the unrelated evidence establishes him as “a man of bad character.”
State v. Henry 102 So. 3d 1016 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Rejecting that argument, this court reasoned that “[rjemoteness in time, in most cases, is only one factor to be considered when determining whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Scoggins, 10-0869 at pp. 18-14, 70 So.3d at 154 ().
State v. Bruce 93 So. 3d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Cavazos 94 So. 3d 870 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Jones 85 So. 3d 224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
30 (La.1998), -26 (evidence demonstrating 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); (quoting State v. Cupit, 189 La.
State v. Miller 83 So. 3d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Richardson 71 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Scoggins 70 So. 3d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.1993), .
State v. Bennett 63 So. 3d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), .
State v. Camp 59 So. 3d 548 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Brooks 58 So. 3d 506 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. White 57 So. 3d 1078 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Youngblood 48 So. 3d 1122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Lawrence 47 So. 3d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
are also several other statutory and jurisprudential rules at play when considering the admissibility of this “other bad act” evidence, summarized in State v. Miller, supra, pp. 3-4, 718 So.2d at 962 3 : First, one of the factors listed in 404 B “must be at issue, have some independent relevance, or be an element of the crime charged in order for the evidence to be admissible.”
State v. Blow 46 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Givens 41 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Fisher 40 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Morgan 34 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Lawrence 32 So. 3d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Davis 26 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Wallace, supra.
State v. Sumlin 25 So. 3d 931 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. BREAKFIELD 21 So. 3d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Schaller 15 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Langston 3 So. 3d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
State v. Ridgley 7 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
5 Cir. 5/19/99), , writ denied, 98-1688 (La.11/12/99)
State v. Malone 998 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Lawson 1 So. 3d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Caston 996 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Crandell 987 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Greer 981 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Winn 978 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Cotton 980 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Alsup 968 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Brown 965 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Smith, 41,048 (La.
State v. Parker 963 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
p. 30 (La.1998), -726 (evidence demonstrating 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 *125 at the victim even though he claimed that the gun accidently went off); ("[when] the element of intent is regarded as an essential ingredient of the crime charged, it is proper to admit proof of similar but d
State v. Grant 954 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Admissibility of evidence of these prior acts has been succinctly set forth in State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), , and the state is required to do the following when it seeks to present such evidence: (1) comply with the notice requirements and limiting instructions set out in State v. Prieur, supra ; (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and was committed by the defendant; (3) show that the evid
State of Louisiana v. W.D.F., Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
art. 412.2 for the proposition that one of the factors listed in Article 412.2 must be at issue before such evidence can be admitted.
State v. Wallace 949 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007