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. Dean, 625 So. 2d 146.

197 citing documents.

  • State v. Williams 950 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
  • State v. Weatherspoon 948 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    [18] State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), .
  • State v. Anderson 942 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Smith 935 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Davis 935 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Crochet 931 So. 2d 1083 La. 2006
    See State v. Jackson, *1088 -51 (La.1993).
  • State v. Roberson 929 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
  • State v. Jackson 926 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Maise, 99-734 (La.
  • State v. Martin 913 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Davis 911 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), .
  • State of Louisiana v. James Allen Drake, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Foremost, at least one of the enumerated purposes in Article 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. Drake 903 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Foremost, at least one of the enumerated purposes in Article 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. Baker 902 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Blackwell, 30,281 (La.App.
  • State v. Mills 900 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Jackson, 93-0424 (La.10/18/93), ; State v. Maise, 99-734 (La.App.
  • State v. Nguyen 888 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Merritt 877 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • 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
  • State v. Dykes 867 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    The court found that the evidence was admissible because it shows lack of accident, and possibly because it shows motive and other “independent means of relevancy.” and limited the evidence to “nothing beyond” genital fondling.
  • State v. Howard 859 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. White, 36,935 (La.App.2d Cir.6/6/03), ; State v. Blackwell, supra.
  • 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. White 850 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
  • State v. Dauzart 844 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Maise, 99-734 (La.
  • State v. Marshall 841 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Maise, 99-734, p. 13 (La.App.
  • State v. Taylor 838 So. 2d 729 La. 2003
    Id.; ("[when] 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 was committed."); -1160 (La.1981)(admission of evidence in first degree
  • State v. Fortino 837 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
    State v. Maise, 99-734, p. 13 (La.App.
  • State v. Quiambao 833 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Cooks 833 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Murray 827 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    art. 404B(1); State v. Fuller, 32,734 (La.App.2d Cir.12/17/99), , writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.8/31/00), .
  • State v. Taylor 821 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Morgan 830 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Smith 815 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Zornes 814 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Richard 807 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
  • State v. Maise 805 So. 2d 1141 La. 2002
    at least one of the enumerated purposes in LA.CODE EVID.
  • State v. Mills 806 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Noil 807 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Barnes 800 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Jacobs 803 So. 2d 933 La. 2001
  • State v. Kelly 791 So. 2d 1286 La. 2001
  • State v. Gibson 785 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Kennedy 803 So. 2d 916 La. 2001
  • 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. Schleve 775 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Zornes 774 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Guillory 773 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Furthermore, (citations omitted): We find that the time between the other crimes evidence and the offense charged is but one factor to be considered when balancing probative value, prejudicial effect and relevancy.
  • State v. Davenport 771 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Dickerson 772 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Ponsell 766 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
  • State v. Jolly 768 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    4 State v. Cangelosi, 98-589 (La.App.