State v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Phillips

111 So. 3d 1021, 2013 WL 1779146, 2013 La. LEXIS 918

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 16, 2013

DocketNo. 2013-KK-0836

StatusPublished

This text of 111 So. 3d 1021 (State v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 111 So. 3d 1021, 2013 WL 1779146, 2013 La. LEXIS 918 (La. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 508-622, 510-820; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0432.

Writ granted. Reversed and Remanded. The Trial Court erred in ruling the other crimes evidence inadmissible in these cases. The facts of Case No. 508-622 (distribution of marijuana) are sufficiently similar to the facts Case No. 510-820 (distribution of marijuana) to justify their admission into evidence under State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973). Specifically, the facts of Case No. 508-622 are admissible in Case No. 510-820 and vice versa to show modis operandi as it bears on the question of the defendant’s identity, because the facts of the narcotics transactions in both cases are so distinctively similar, especially in terms of time, place, and manner of commission, that one must [1022]*1022logically say they are the work of the same person. See State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 516, 521.

WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

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

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 508-622, 510-820; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2013-K-0432.

Writ granted. Reversed and Remanded. The Trial Court erred in ruling the other crimes evidence inadmissible in these cases. The facts of Case No. 508-622 (distribution of marijuana) are sufficiently similar to the facts Case No. 510-820 (distribution of marijuana) to justify their admission into evidence under State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973). Specifically, the facts of Case No. 508-622 are admissible in Case No. 510-820 and vice versa to show modis operandi as it bears on the question of the defendant’s identity, because the facts of the narcotics transactions in both cases are so distinctively similar, especially in terms of time, place, and manner of commission, that one must [1022]*1022logically say they are the work of the same person. See State v. Hills, 99-1750, p. 6 (La.5/16/00), 761 So.2d 516, 521.

WEIMER and HUGHES, JJ., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 3d 1021, 2013 WL 1779146, 2013 La. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-phillips-la-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack