State v. Martin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Martin

262 So. 3d 279

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 28, 2019

DocketNo. 2018-KK-1722

StatusPublished

This text of 262 So. 3d 279 (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, 262 So. 3d 279 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. "Remoteness in time, in most cases, is only one factor to be considered when determining whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. Generally, a lapse in time will go to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility." State v. Jackson , 625 So.2d 146, 149 (La. 1993). In the present case, while the prior crimes occurred between six and eleven years ago, their probative value would not appear to be 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 *280time," La.C.E. art. 403, considering defendant stands charged with ten burglaries and the state only seeks to admit evidence of three prior offenses-an attempted burglary and two burglaries-which are probative of defendant's intent and absence of mistake. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's ruling, which excluded the prior crimes from trial, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

WEIMER, J., would deny.

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

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. "Remoteness in time, in most cases, is only one factor to be considered when determining whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. Generally, a lapse in time will go to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility." State v. Jackson , 625 So.2d 146, 149 (La. 1993). In the present case, while the prior crimes occurred between six and eleven years ago, their probative value would not appear to be 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 *280time," La.C.E. art. 403, considering defendant stands charged with ten burglaries and the state only seeks to admit evidence of three prior offenses-an attempted burglary and two burglaries-which are probative of defendant's intent and absence of mistake. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's ruling, which excluded the prior crimes from trial, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

WEIMER, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 3d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack