Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
105 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Prieurred2 sentences2019At the Prieur hearing, see State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126, 130 ( La. 1973), the State indicated that, while it intended to introduce the fact that the defendant had been shot, it did not intend to introduce evidence that the defendant returned fire. 2019At the Prieur hearing, see State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126, 130 ( La. 1973), the State indicated that, while it intended to introduce the fact that the defendant had been shot, it did not intend to introduce evidence that the defendant returned fire. | 4 | 21 |
State v. Ledetgreen2 sentences1999State v. Ledet, 345 So.2d 474, 477 (La.1977). 1999State v. Ledet, 345 So.2d 474, 477 (La.1977). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Hatchergreen2 sentences2016In State v. Lukehahr, 363 So. 2d 661, 665 (La. 1978), this court explained that Prieur does not “require a pre-trial evidentiary hearing as to whether extraneous other-crime evidence may be admitted; it only requires that, before such evidence is introduced, the trial court must determine, on the basis of the showing requisite for it to do so at the hearing outside the presence of the jury, that the extraneous acts are probative of a real issue and that their probative value exceeds their prejudicial effect.” However, despite the pronouncement in Lukehahr, the Prieur court did not prohibit suc 2016In State v. Lukefahr, 363 So.2d 661, 665 (La. 1978), this court explained that Prieur does not “require a pre-trial evidentiary hearing as to whether extraneous other-crime evidence may be admitted; it only requires that, before such evidence is introduced, the trial court must determine, on the basis of the showing .requisite for it to do so at the hearing outside the presence of the jury, that the extraneous acts are probative of a real issue and that their probative value exceeds. their prejudicial effect.” However, despite the pronouncement in Lukefahr , the Prieur court did not prohibit s | 3 | 5 |
State v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2004State v. Dickerson, 00-951, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 , writ denied, 00-3515 (La.8/31/01), 795 So.2d 1209 . 2004State v. Dickerson, 00-951, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 , writ denied, 00-3515 (La.8/31/01), 795 So.2d 1209 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pardongreen2 sentences2019See Pardon, 703 So. 2d at 57 . 2005App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 703 So.2d 50, 57 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1207 ]. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences2024State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 737, 743 (La. 2024State v. Baker, 452 So.2d 737, 743 (La. | 1 | 4 |
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Taylorgreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Taylor, 16-1124, p. 13 (La. 12/1/16), 217 So.3d 283, 293 (finding no error in the district court’s reliance on an unauthenticated police report in a Prieur hearing). 2022See also State v. Taylor, 16-1124, p. 13 (La. 12/1/16), 217 So.3d 283, 293 (finding no error in the district court’s reliance on an unauthenticated police report in a Prieur hearing). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2018See State v. Altenberger , supra (evidence of the "defendant's pattern of domestic abuse goes directly to rebut defenses defendant may raise at trial and demonstrates their independent relevancy besides merely painting defendant as a bad person"); State v. Rose , supra (evidence that the defendant previously physically abused the victim was admissible to show motive for her murder and to demonstrate the volatile nature of their relationship); State v. Walker , 394 So.2d 1181 (La. 1981) (evidence that defendant and victim had a volatile relationship and that defendant had a bad temper was relev 2018See State v. Altenberger , supra (evidence of the "defendant's pattern of domestic abuse goes directly to rebut defenses defendant may raise at trial and demonstrates their independent relevancy besides merely painting defendant as a bad person"); State v. Rose , supra (evidence that the defendant previously physically abused the victim was admissible to show motive for her murder and to demonstrate the volatile nature of their relationship); State v. Walker , 394 So.2d 1181 (La. 1981) (evidence that defendant and victim had a volatile relationship and that defendant had a bad temper was relev | 1 | 3 |
Huddleston v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997Article 1103, however was repealed in 1995. [2] Code of Evidence article 1104, which was added in 1994, [3] provides the burden of proof in a Prieur hearing "shall be identical to the burden of proof required by Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV, Rule 404." In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court indicated with regard to Rule 404 that the required burden of proof is met if the fact-finder could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the defendant committed the act in question. 1997Article 1103, however was repealed in 1995. [2] Code of Evidence article 1104, which was added in 1994, [3] provides the burden of proof in a Prieur hearing "shall be identical to the burden of proof required by Federal Rules of Evidence Article IV, Rule 404." In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 689 , 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1501 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), the United States Supreme Court indicated with regard to Rule 404 that the required burden of proof is met if the fact-finder could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the defendant committed the act in question. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dauzartgreen2 sentences2006State v. Dauzart, 844 So.2d at 165 . 2006State v. Dauzart, 844 So.2d at 165 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2005The Defendant also avers that a Prieur hearing should have been held under Article 412.2 as he was "ambushed by non-charged and acquitted conduct which dated back as far as 33 years prior to trial." The Defendant further asserts that evidence of other crimes and bad acts was not admissible under both Articles 404(B) and 412.2 pursuant to State v. Kennedy, 00-1554 (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 , superceded by statute as stated in State v. Zornes, 34,070 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 814 So.2d 113 , writ denied, 02-1280 (La.11/27/02), 831 So.2d 269 . 2005The Defendant also avers that a Prieur hearing should have been held under Article 412.2 as he was "ambushed by non-charged and acquitted conduct which dated back as far as 33 years prior to trial." The Defendant further asserts that evidence of other crimes and bad acts was not admissible under both Articles 404(B) and 412.2 pursuant to State v. Kennedy, 00-1554 (La.4/3/01), 803 So.2d 916 , superceded by statute as stated in State v. Zornes, 34,070 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 814 So.2d 113 , writ denied, 02-1280 (La.11/27/02), 831 So.2d 269 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Alemangreen2 sentences2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. 2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lukefahrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gibsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bilbogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tarletongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Campgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pollardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mandosia
green
2 sentences2011State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La.1978); State v. Mandosia, 36,827 (La.App.2d Cir.04/09/03), 842 So.2d 1252 . 2011State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La.1978); State v. Mandosia, 36,827 (La.App.2d Cir.04/09/03), 842 So.2d 1252 . | 6 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Boyd
green
2 sentences2011State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La.1978); State v. Mandosia, 36,827 (La.App.2d Cir.04/09/03), 842 So.2d 1252 . 2011State v. Boyd, 359 So.2d 931 (La.1978); State v. Mandosia, 36,827 (La.App.2d Cir.04/09/03), 842 So.2d 1252 . | 5 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Pardon
green
2 sentences2005App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 703 So.2d 50, 57 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1207 ]. 2005App. 5 Cir. 10/15/97), 703 So.2d 50, 57 , writ denied, 97-2892 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1207 ]. | 5 | 1999–2005 |
State v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). 2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). | 3 | 1997–2018 |
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . 2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . | 3 | 2000–2002 |
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . 2002See: State v. Dickerson, 00-951 (La.App. 5th Cir.11/2/00), 772 So.2d 845, 853, fn. 3 ; State v. Hernandez, 98-448, p. 18 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 888, 898 , writ denied, 99-1688 (La.11/12/99), 750 So.2d 194 . | 3 | 2000–2002 |
State v. Wesley
green
2 sentences1997However, in State v. Crawford, 95-1362, pp. 16-19 (La.App. 3d Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197, 207-208 , writ denied, 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 , the Third Circuit stated that La.Code Evid. art. 1104 requires the burden of proof for a Prieur hearing to be identical to that required by the Federal Rules of Evidence Art. 1997However, in State v. Crawford, 95-1362, pp. 16-19 (La.App. 3d Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197, 207-208 , writ denied, 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 , the Third Circuit stated that La.Code Evid. art. 1104 requires the burden of proof for a Prieur hearing to be identical to that required by the Federal Rules of Evidence Art. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Crawford
green
2 sentences1997However, in State v. Crawford, 95-1362, pp. 16-19 (La.App. 3d Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197, 207-208 , writ denied, 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 , the Third Circuit stated that La.Code Evid. art. 1104 requires the burden of proof for a Prieur hearing to be identical to that required by the Federal Rules of Evidence Art. 1997However, in State v. Crawford, 95-1362, pp. 16-19 (La.App. 3d Cir. 4/3/96), 672 So.2d 197, 207-208 , writ denied, 96-1126 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1379 , the Third Circuit stated that La.Code Evid. art. 1104 requires the burden of proof for a Prieur hearing to be identical to that required by the Federal Rules of Evidence Art. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
Pic-A-State PA, Inc. v. Reno
green
2 sentences2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). 2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Bass v. Sarasota County
green
2 sentences2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). 2018State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La. 11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272 , 1284, cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Scales
green
2 sentences2009See: State v. Scales, 93-2003, p. 2 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 1326, 1330 , cert. denied, Scales v. Louisiana, 516 U.S. 1050 , 116 S.Ct. 716 , 133 L.Ed.2d 670 (1996) (The trial judge did not err in denying the defendant’s hearsay objection at a pretrial Prieur hearing.) and State v. Brown, 01-230, p. 11 (La.App. 4 cir. 2/28/01), 782 So.2d 136, 144 , writ denied, 01-884 (La.┴6/29/01),13 794 So.2d 811 . 2006The Supreme Court held that "[g]iven the probative value of this evidence, we find any prejudicial effect is outweighed." Id. *49 In State v. Johnson, 97-1701 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/27/98) , 716 So.2d 403 , this Court found that the trial court properly "granted the Prieur motion on the grounds that the similarities in the crimes were sufficient, not in their details, but because of the `extreme violence and mental attitude of antagonism and let's say anger towards females which is demonstrated in various ways, not always the same but in various ways during the course of the crimes.'" Id. at 407 (e | 2 | 2006–2009 |
State v. Maise
green
2 sentences2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. 2003State v. Aleman, 809 So.2d at 1064 ; State v. Maise, 759 So.2d at 893 ; The Louisiana Supreme Court has declined to address the question of how LSA-C.E. art. 1104 and Huddleston affect the burden of proof with respect to other crimes evidence. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2002The trial court found the testimony admissible, noting that State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), 718 So.2d 960 , held that “lustful disposition” evidence may be relevant to prove the element of specific intent. 2002The trial court found the testimony admissible, noting that State v. Miller, 98-0301 (La.9/9/98), 718 So.2d 960 , held that “lustful disposition” evidence may be relevant to prove the element of specific intent. | 2 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Augustine
green
2 sentences1977Secondly, defendant argues that, as a matter of law, testimony transcribed at a Prieur hearing is not admissible because its introduction has never been previously allowed in this state by statute or jurisprudential ruling and because under our decision in State v. Augustine, 252 La. 983 , 215 So.2d 634 (1968) and the dissenting opinion in State v. Dickerson, 282 So.2d 456 (La.1973) a transcript is inadmissible in this situation. 1977Secondly, defendant argues that, as a matter of law, testimony transcribed at a Prieur hearing is not admissible because its introduction has never been previously allowed in this state by statute or jurisprudential ruling and because under our decision in State v. Augustine, 252 La. 983 , 215 So.2d 634 (1968) and the dissenting opinion in State v. Dickerson, 282 So.2d 456 (La.1973) a transcript is inadmissible in this situation. | 2 | 1977–2002 |
Dixie Building Material Co. v. Bob L. Whittington & Associates, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2000Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal, 579 So.2d 999 (1991), and remand the case to that court to determine whether Prieur’s prescribed claim can be used as an offset to the obligation plaintiff seeks to enforce. 1991Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal, 579 So.2d 999 (1991), and remand the case to that court to determine whether Prieur's prescribed claim can be used as an offset to the obligation plaintiff seeks to enforce. | 2 | 1991–2000 |
State v. Guidroz
green
2 sentences1999State v. Guidroz, 98-377 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98) , 721 So.2d 480 ; State v. Pardon, 97-248 (La. 1999State v. Guidroz, 98-377 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/14/98) , 721 So.2d 480 ; State v. Pardon, 97-248 (La. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. King
neutral
2 sentences1992WRIT DENIED: We specifically disapprove of the language in State v. Tucker, 602 So.2d 59 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 604 So.2d 1320 (La.1992), which indicates that hearsay is not admissible at a Prieur hearing for purposes of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the other crime(s); and we specifically overrule any such holding therein. 1992WRIT DENIED: We specifically disapprove of the language in State v. Tucker, 602 So.2d 59 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 604 So.2d 1320 (La.1992), which indicates that hearsay is not admissible at a Prieur hearing for purposes of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the other crime(s); and we specifically overrule any such holding therein. | 2 | 1992–1995 |
State v. Ramos
green
2 sentences1994Granted, impeachment of a witness by evidence of such misdeeds is not permitted because a municipal offense is nót a “crime.” See State v. Ramos, 390 So.2d 1262 (La.1980); State v. Ladner, 619 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1059 (La.1993). 1994Granted, impeachment of a witness by evidence of such misdeeds is not permitted because a municipal offense is nót a “crime.” See State v. Ramos, 390 So.2d 1262 (La.1980); State v. Ladner, 619 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), writ denied, 625 So.2d 1059 (La.1993). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Ladner green | 2 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Carter green | 2 | 1988–1990 |
| State v. Celestine green | 2 | 1988–1990 |
| State v. Washington green | 2 | 1988–1990 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Murray green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Shirley green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Blueford neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Blueford neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Pryor v. Louisiana neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Evins green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Manatt v. Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Kuhn v. Kuhn green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Carter green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Hollimon green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Galliano green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Blank green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Harvey green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.