State v. James

38 Citing cases

  1. State v. Carter

    198 Conn. 386 (Conn. 1986)   Cited 36 times
    In State v. Carter, 198 Conn. 386, 389-95, 503 A.2d 576 (1986), we held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in permitting the state to introduce evidence of a prior conviction of the defendant in order to rebut the defense of insanity.

    Recognizing that a plea of insanity triggers a broad inquiry into the defendant's entire life, courts have admitted evidence of prior misconduct because of its significance in showing the mental condition of the defendant, when such evidence would ordinarily be excluded. See Thomason v. State, 46 Ala. App. 10, 237 So.2d 121 (1970); Burgunder v. Arizona, 55 Ariz. 411, 103 P.2d 256 (1940); People v. Vanda, 111 Ill. App.3d 551, 444 N.E.2d 609 (1982); Fulmer v. State, 249 Ind. 261, 230 N.E.2d 307 (1967); Wilson v. State, supra; State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981); People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 187 N.E.2d 116, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1962); State v. Johnson, 69 Wash.2d 264, 418 P.2d 238 (1966); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1972) 222. "Whenever insanity is asserted as a defense and is supported by any credible evidence, `it is of critical importance that the defendant's entire relevant symptomology be brought before the jury . . . .' `[W]hen insanity is in issue, any and all conduct of the person is admissible in evidence.

  2. State v. Vaughn

    431 So. 2d 358 (La. 1983)   Cited 51 times
    In State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 358 (La. 1982) (on rehearing), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that, in a case charging the aggravated rape of a white woman where the black defendants claimed the victim had encouraged their advances and consented to sexual intercourse, the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in preventing cross-examination of the victim on the issue of the race of her brother-in-law, who was allegedly black.

    The relevancy of proffered evidence depends on whether it tends to prove or disprove a material fact at issue. State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981); State v. Constantine, 364 So.2d 1011 (La. 1978). A trial judge's determination regarding the relevancy of evidence will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.

  3. State ex rel. R.M.

    208 So. 3d 966 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    In order to determine if there has been a speedy trial violation, the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted a four-part test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). State v. James , 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981) ; State v. Reaves , 376 So.2d 136 (La. 1979). Under the Barker test, to determine whether or not there has been a speedy trial violation, the court considers: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.

  4. State v. McGill

    213 So. 3d 1181 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    These factors include: (1) length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, (4) and prejudice to the defendant. Id. ; State v. James , 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981) ; State v. Jordan, supra . Here, a review of the record does not indicate a violation of McGill's right to a speedy trial.

  5. State v. Wills

    125 So. 3d 509 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    These factors include: (1) length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right; (4) and prejudice to the defendant. State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La.1981); State v. Bradham, supra. Applying the four factors mentioned above, review of the record does not indicate a violation of Wills' right to a speedy trial.

  6. State v. Bradham

    87 So. 3d 200 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    These factors include: (1) length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, (4) and prejudice to the defendant. Id.;State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La.1981); State v. Jordan, supra;State v. Johnston, 480 So.2d 823 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985). Applying the four factors mentioned above, review of the record does not indicate a violation of Bradham's right to a speedy trial.

  7. State v. Bradham

    No. 46,985-KA (La. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)

    Id.; State v. James, 394 So. 2d 1197 (La. 1981); State v. Jordan, supra; State v. Johnston, 480 So. 2d 823 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1985). Applying the four factors mentioned above, review of the record does not indicate a violation of Bradham's right to a speedy trial.

  8. State v. Logan

    34 So. 3d 528 (La. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 25 times

    The four factors to be considered under the test are: 1) the length of delay; 2) the reason for the delay; 3) the defendant's assertion of his right; and 4) prejudice to the defendant, such as the possible impairment of the presentation of the accused's defense. Barker v. Wingo, supra; State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981). A motion to quash is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging an untimely commencement of trial.

  9. State v. Yates

    15 So. 3d 1260 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Yates, 44,391 (La.App. 2 Cir. 7/1/09), 15 So.3d 1260, writ denied, 09-2096 (La. 8/18/10), 42 So.3d 398, the defendant logged into an internet "romance" chat room and thought he was having a sexual conversation with a 15-year-old girl named "Lori Poff."

    The four factors to be considered are: 1) length of delay; 2) reason for the delay; 3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and 4) prejudice to the defendant, such as the possible impairment of the presentation of the accused's defense. Barker v. Wingo, supra; State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197 (La. 1981); State v. Johnston, supra. For noncapital felony cases, the state must commence trial within two years from the date of institution of prosecution.

  10. State v. Stewart

    983 So. 2d 166 (La. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that fifteen months between the bill of information and filing of speedy trial motion not presumptively prejudicial, but nonetheless evaluating the remaining Barker factors

    Whether this right has been violated is determined by a four-part test: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his or her right, and prejudice to the defendant.Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. at 2192; State v. James, 394 So.2d 1197, 1200 (La. 1981). [Boldface added for emphasis.]