State v. Walters

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Walters

83 So. 3d 1017, 2012 WL 1062290, 2012 La. LEXIS 709

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 28, 2012

Docket2012-KK-0667

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 So. 3d 1017 (State v. Walters) 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. Walters, 83 So. 3d 1017, 2012 WL 1062290, 2012 La. LEXIS 709 (La. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

11 Writ granted. Reversed and remanded. The state’s notice of intent to introduce other crimes evidence gave adequate notice to the defendant of the nature of the evidence that the state intends to introduce. Further, the fact that the crime intended to be introduced occurred less than one month prior to the crime for which defendant is to be tried indicates that the evidence of such crime is more probative than prejudicial. The trial court erred by focusing more on the means that the state might use to introduce the evidence than on whether the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. The means of introducing the evidence must, of course, adhere to the Code of Evidence, but that is a ruling which must be made at the time the evidence is introduced at trial. *1018 The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.

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

PER CURIAM.

11 Writ granted. Reversed and remanded. The state’s notice of intent to introduce other crimes evidence gave adequate notice to the defendant of the nature of the evidence that the state intends to introduce. Further, the fact that the crime intended to be introduced occurred less than one month prior to the crime for which defendant is to be tried indicates that the evidence of such crime is more probative than prejudicial. The trial court erred by focusing more on the means that the state might use to introduce the evidence than on whether the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. The means of introducing the evidence must, of course, adhere to the Code of Evidence, but that is a ruling which must be made at the time the evidence is introduced at trial. *1018 The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 3d 1017, 2012 WL 1062290, 2012 La. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walters-la-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack