State v. Barthelemy

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Barthelemy

216 So. 3d 809, 2017 La. LEXIS 553

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 13, 2017

DocketNO. 2017-KK-0439

StatusPublished

This text of 216 So. 3d 809 (State v. Barthelemy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Barthelemy, 216 So. 3d 809, 2017 La. LEXIS 553 (La. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 523-097; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0219;

1 iWrit granted. The district court’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s objection to the introduction of other crimes evidence is reversed. Because the two shootings were so closely connected in time and place-merely minutes apart and only a few blocks separating the locations, we find the prior shooting constitutes an integral part of the transaction of events that culminated in the attempted shooting of the police officer. See La. Code Evid. art. 404(B)(1); State v. Taylor, 01-1638, pp. 10-11 (La. 1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 741. Consequently, the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the prior shooting. See State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La, 1992).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 523-097; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2017-K-0219;

1 iWrit granted. The district court’s ruling sustaining the defendant’s objection to the introduction of other crimes evidence is reversed. Because the two shootings were so closely connected in time and place-merely minutes apart and only a few blocks separating the locations, we find the prior shooting constitutes an integral part of the transaction of events that culminated in the attempted shooting of the police officer. See La. Code Evid. art. 404(B)(1); State v. Taylor, 01-1638, pp. 10-11 (La. 1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 741. Consequently, the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the prior shooting. See State v. Mosby, 595 So.2d 1135 (La, 1992).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 So. 3d 809, 2017 La. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barthelemy-la-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack