5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divisiongreen2 sentences2015In capital cases, the relevancy standard essentially translates into “whether the evidence is of such a character that it might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id., 542 U.S. at 285 , 124 S.Ct. at 2571 (citation and quotations omitted). 2015In capital cases, the relevancy standard essentially translates into “whether the evidence is of such a character that it might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id., 542 U.S. at 285 , 124 S.Ct. at 2571 (citation and quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKoy v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2015In capital cases, the relevancy standard essentially translates into “whether the evidence is of such a character that it might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id., 542 U.S. at 285 , 124 S.Ct. at 2571 (citation and quotations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2011C.E. art. 403, which provides that even if evidence is relevant, the court my [sic] exclude it if its probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hall
green
1 sentence2006C.E. art. 403, which provides that even if evidence is relevant, the court my exclude it if its probative value is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time." As noted in State v. Hall, XXXX-XXXX, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/19/03), 843 So.2d 488, 496 , writ den. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Kenney v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1990Kenney v. Coo per, 444 So.2d 211 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Davenport
green
1 sentence1986State v. Davenport, 445 So.2d 1190 (La. 1984); State v. Ludwig, 428 So.2d 1073 (La.1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jackson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986State v. Davenport, 445 So.2d 1190 (La. 1984); State v. Ludwig, 428 So.2d 1073 (La.1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.