system exception in Louisiana

1993State v. Banks, 307 So.2d 594 (La.1975).

1987State v. Banks, 307 So.2d 594 (La.1975).

1993To determine the admissibility of this evidence under former R.S. 15:446, this court in Nelson, supra, stated: “... when the pattern of two offenses is so identical, the system exception applies if identity of the defendant as the perpetrator is a crucial issue.

1992Delinquency Adjudications in Juvenile Court Citing Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 , 108 S.Ct. 2687 , 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), and In the Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978), the defense argues that delinquency adjudications while the defendant was a juvenile should be excluded from a capital sentencing hearing on a policy basis, since the law does not hold a minor fully responsible for the consequences of his immaturity. [10] However, criminal conduct by the defendant while he was a juvenile may be relevant to the character and moral quality issues in a capital sentencing hearing if t

1992Delinquency Adjudications in Juvenile Court Citing Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 , 108 S.Ct. 2687 , 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), and In the Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978), the defense argues that delinquency adjudications while the defendant was a juvenile should be excluded from a capital sentencing hearing on a policy basis, since the law does not hold a minor fully responsible for the consequences of his immaturity. [10] However, criminal conduct by the defendant while he was a juvenile may be relevant to the character and moral quality issues in a capital sentencing hearing if t

1992Delinquency Adjudications in Juvenile Court Citing Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 , 108 S.Ct. 2687 , 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988), and In the Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978), the defense argues that delinquency adjudications while the defendant was a juvenile should be excluded from a capital sentencing hearing on a policy basis, since the law does not hold a minor fully responsible for the consequences of his immaturity. [10] However, criminal conduct by the defendant while he was a juvenile may be relevant to the character and moral quality issues in a capital sentencing hearing if t

1983James, 396 So.2d at 1287 . *546 Nonetheless, when the pattern of two offenses is so identical, the system exception applies if identity of the defendant as the perpetrator is a crucial issue.

1981DeVillier v. Highlands Insurance Company, 389 So.2d 1133 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1980); Central Surety & Ins.

1978State v. Showers, 359 So.2d 104 (La.1978), the viability of the holding in State v. Bradford, 259 La. 381 , 250 So.2d 375 (1971) may be limited to permitting evidence of prior child-beatings which produce serious injuries, in order to rebut a defense that the child-injuries alleged to have been committed by the accused were accidental in nature or the result of what was intended to be normal and reasonable discipline. [3] A "system" of killing children, such as for insurance purposes, is not a relevant fact at issue; the system exception is not pertinent, if only for this reason.

1978State v. Showers, 359 So.2d 104 (La.1978), the viability of the holding in State v. Bradford, 259 La. 381 , 250 So.2d 375 (1971) may be limited to permitting evidence of prior child-beatings which produce serious injuries, in order to rebut a defense that the child-injuries alleged to have been committed by the accused were accidental in nature or the result of what was intended to be normal and reasonable discipline. [3] A "system" of killing children, such as for insurance purposes, is not a relevant fact at issue; the system exception is not pertinent, if only for this reason.

1977Although the earlier jurisprudence was quite liberal in the application of the system exception, State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973), and other cases [5] have more clearly delineated and limited the scope of "system." The earlier cases appeared to recognize that the relevance of the extraneous offense lies in the inference that because the accused has committed somewhat similar crimes in a general area, it is more likely that he committed the crime at bar.

1965The answer to the question posed is that a municipality can take a franchise as in the case at bar, the electric distribution system and the right to serve the inhabitants in the municipality, by eminent domain, even though the franchise was granted by the police jury prior to the addition of the extended territory in question to the municipality.” (Italics added.) See also Town of Coushatta v. Valley Electric Membership Corp., La.App., 139 So.2d 822 .