State v. Marsalis

17 Citing cases

  1. State v. Carter

    976 So. 2d 196 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 19 times
    In State v. Carter, 07–270 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 976 So.2d 196, the defendant was convicted of looting merchandise from a large apparel merchant and was sentenced to eighteen years at hard labor, after being adjudicated a second felony offender.

    Generally, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by a criminal defendant is not admissible at trial, although relevant, if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, and unless it falls under one of the statutory or jurisprudential exceptions to the exclusionary rule. LSA-C.E. arts. 403 and 404; See State v. Marsalis, 04-827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. [A] mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial . . . refers directly or indirectly to . . . [a]nother crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible[.] . . .

  2. State v. Rodas

    202 So. 3d 518 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times

    State v. Clark, 05–652 (La.App. 5 Cir. 02/14/06), 924 So.2d 282, 289, writs denied, 06–622 (La. 10/13/06), 939 So.2d 372 and 06–1175 (La. 01/12/07), 948 So.2d 138. An impermissible reference to inadmissible evidence of another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant, which is deliberately elicited by the prosecutor, is imputable to the State and triggers the rule mandating a mistrial. State v. Marsalis, 04–827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 04/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. A mistrial is a drastic remedy and is warranted only when trial error results in substantial prejudice to a defendant, depriving him of a reasonable expectation of a fair trial.

  3. State v. Butler

    171 So. 3d 1283 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 13 times

    harmless error analysis. See Davis, 08–165, 993 So.2d at 306 ; State v. Marsalis, 04–827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. The test for determining if an error was harmless is whether the verdict actually rendered in the case was surely unattributable to the error.

  4. State v. Gross

    110 So. 3d 1173 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    However, the right to present a defense does not require the trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice. State v. Marsalis, 04–827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1088. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

  5. State v. Ventris

    79 So. 3d 1108 (La. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 28 times
    In Ventris, 79 So.3d 1108, this Court found that the State did not solicit the statement from the defense witness that the defendant was his drug dealer.

    Even assuming that the testimony that the defendant was McDonald's drug dealer constituted impermissible references to other crimes, any such error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Marsalis, 04–827, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. The test for determining if an error was harmless is whether the verdict actually rendered in the case was surely unattributable to the error.

  6. State v. Page

    28 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 52 times
    In State v. Page, 08–531 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/10/09), 28 So.3d 442, 449–450,writ denied,09–2684 (La.6/4/10), 38 So.3d 299, this Court found sufficient evidence of second degree murder under the law of principals, where the defendant, who maintained that he was not the shooter, remained with his co-defendant at the scene, did nothing to prevent the crime, fled the scene rather than coming to the victim's aid, and did not attempt to report the shooting.

    This Court determined that because the testimony was not evidence of other bad acts, pre-trial notice of the testimony was not required. Also, in State v. Marsalis, 04-827, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1086, this Court found a witness' testimony that defendant was housed in the maximum security side of the jail where sentenced inmates were housed was not other crimes evidence. This Court noted the objectionable testimony did not specifically mention defendant was in jail for an armed robbery conviction and awaiting trial for first degree murder, and thus, the testimony did not impermissibly reference other crimes evidence.

  7. State v. Davis

    993 So. 2d 295 (La. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 15 times

    In addition, even assuming that evidence of defendant's drug dealing and of threats defendant's family made against Williams constituted impermissible references to other crimes, any such error is subject to a harmless error analysis. State v. Marsalis, 04-827, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1085. The test for determining if an error was harmless is whether the verdict actually rendered in the case was surely unattributable to the error.

  8. State v. Faciane

    233 So. 3d 195 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 13 times

    However, the right to present a defense does not require the trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice. State v. Marsalis , 04-827 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1088. In this case, the exact physical location of Detective Disler during the surveillance of defendant while the controlled buy was conducted was not disclosed in order to protect the identity of the C.I. While defendant claims that the exact location of Detective Disler was necessary to prepare his defense, defendant was not charged with any conduct related to the controlled buy. Rather, defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine that was seized at a later date pursuant to a search warrant.

  9. State v. Dyson

    220 So. 3d 785 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    However, the right to present a defense does not require the trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is irrelevant or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice. State v. Marsalis, 04-827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, 1088. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

  10. State v. Sigue

    134 So. 3d 156 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times
    In State v. Sigue, 13–1072 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/14), 134 So.3d 156, the defendant alleged the state failed to prove he was the same person who entered guilty pleas to the predicate offenses alleged in the habitual offender bill.

    Thus, if error occurred, the verdict was surely unattributable to the error. Defendant cites State v. Marsalis, 04–827 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/26/05), 902 So.2d 1081, in which the defendant argued that a State witness should not have been allowed to refer to his incarceration in a maximum security area. However, Marsalis did not address a scenario in which evidence of a prior offense at issue was introduced.