federal constitutional error in North Dakota

38 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 13 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1970–2023 2 sentences 2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless). 2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).	4	13
State v. Chihanskigreen nd · 1995 · cited in 4 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1999–2007 2 sentences 2007Our analysis leads us to whether this violation was harmless error. "[F]ederal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D. 1995). 2007Our analysis leads us to whether this violation was harmless error. “[F]ederal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995).	4	4
State v. Hillinggreen nd · 1974 · cited in 4 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1975–1984 2 sentences 1984Under the Chapman test, federal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 792 (N.D.1978); State v. Carmody, 253 N.W.2d 415, 418 (N.D.1977); State v. Hilling, 219 N.W.2d 164, 172 (N.D.1974); see Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP, Explanatory Note. 1975Jacobson, 50 N.D.L.Rev. 1, at 22.) We have recently adopted the rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that: “. . . before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hilling, 219 N.W.2d 164, 172 (N.D.1974).	3	4
State v. Schneidergreen nd · 1978 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1984–2009 2 sentences 2009We conclude the State’s comment was an improper comment on Scutchings’s constitutional right to remain silent. [¶14] When a prosecutor improperly comments on a defendant’s right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error analysis: Reviewing courts must ignore harmless errors, including most constitutional violations. [ State v. Janda , 397 N.W.2d 59, 66 (N.D. 1986).] A harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights” and “must be disregarded.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the cour 2008A harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights” and “must be disregarded.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a). “[Bjefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless ' beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schneider , at 792 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).	3	3
State v. Ashgreen nd · 1995 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1998–2023 2 sentences 2023See also Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481 ; State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268, 278 (N.D. 1984) (stating error is harmless ‘where it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the substantial rights of the defendant are not affected. . . .’). 2 “In addition to the constitutional guarantee, Rule 43(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the presence of the defendant ‘at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury. . . .’ Our North Dakota Rule is fashioned after the similarly-worded Federal Rule 43. 1998See also Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481 ; State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268,278 (N.D.1984) (stating error is harmless “where it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] substantial rights of the defendant are not affected_”). [¶ 11] In addition to the constitutional guarantee, Rule 43(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the presence of the defendant “at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury_” Our North Dakota Rule is fash- ioned after the similarly-worded Federal Rule 43.	2	2
State v. Hatchgreen nd · 1984 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1998–2023 2 sentences 2023See also Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481 ; State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268, 278 (N.D. 1984) (stating error is harmless ‘where it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the substantial rights of the defendant are not affected. . . .’). 2 “In addition to the constitutional guarantee, Rule 43(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the presence of the defendant ‘at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury. . . .’ Our North Dakota Rule is fashioned after the similarly-worded Federal Rule 43. 1998See also Ash, 526 N.W.2d at 481 ; State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268,278 (N.D.1984) (stating error is harmless “where it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] substantial rights of the defendant are not affected_”). [¶ 11] In addition to the constitutional guarantee, Rule 43(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the presence of the defendant “at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury_” Our North Dakota Rule is fash- ioned after the similarly-worded Federal Rule 43.	2	2
State v. Flammgreen nd · 1984 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1995–1999 2 sentences 1999In State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623-24 (N.D.1995), we stated the test to apply when determining whether a federal constitutional error requires reversal: "`[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Flamm, 351 N.W.2d 108, 110 (N.D. 1984); N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a), Explanatory Note. 1999In State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623-24 (N.D.1995), we stated the test to apply when determining whether a federal constitutional error requires reversal: “ ‘[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Flamm, 351 N.W.2d 108, 110 (N.D.1984); N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a), Explanatory Note.	2	2
State v. Carmodygreen nd · 1977 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1978–1984 2 sentences 1984Under the Chapman test, federal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 792 (N.D.1978); State v. Carmody, 253 N.W.2d 415, 418 (N.D.1977); State v. Hilling, 219 N.W.2d 164, 172 (N.D.1974); see Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP, Explanatory Note. 1978See Carmody, supra 253 N.W.2d at 418 ; Hilling, supra 219 N.W.2d at 172; and Comments to Rule 52, N.D.R.Crim.P.	2	2
Kelly v. Guygreen nd · 1965 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012We also discussed Kelly v. Guy, 133 N.W.2d 853 (N.D.1965), and we said that case involved a federal constitutional challenge to a separate state constitutional provision under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2012We also discussed Kelly v. Guy , 133 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 1965), and we said that case involved a federal constitutional challenge to a separate state constitutional provision under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.	1	3
Clark v. Stategreen nd · 2001 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2014 2 sentences 2014“Before a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 . [¶ 38] Although Coppage was charged and tried for an offense that was not cognizable, under the circumstances we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for his conviction for aggravated assault. 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).	1	2
Clark v. Stategreen nd · 2001 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2014 2 sentences 2014“Before a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 . [¶ 38] Although Coppage was charged and tried for an offense that was not cognizable, under the circumstances we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for his conviction for aggravated assault. 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).	1	2
Pemberton v. Stategreen · 2021 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Pemberton, 2021 ND 85, ¶ 18 (cleaned up).	1	1
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Caseyred scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-66 , 93 S.Ct. 705 . [¶ 16] In 1992, in Casey, 505 U.S. at 844 , 112 S.Ct. 2791 , the Supreme Court considered a federal constitutional challenge to several provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, including language: (1) defining a “medical emergency” for purposes of certain exemptions from the requirements of the Act; (2) requiring informed consent and a twenty-four hour waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion; (3) requiring informed parental consent with a judicial bypass option for a minor seeking an abortion; and (4) requiring a married woman 2014Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-66 , 93 S.Ct. 705 . [¶ 16] In 1992, in Casey, 505 U.S. at 844 , 112 S.Ct. 2791 , the Supreme Court considered a federal constitutional challenge to several provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, including language: (1) defining a “medical emergency” for purposes of certain exemptions from the requirements of the Act; (2) requiring informed consent and a twenty-four hour waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion; (3) requiring informed parental consent with a judicial bypass option for a minor seeking an abortion; and (4) requiring a married woman	1	1
Roe v. Wadered scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 117-18 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), the United States Supreme Court considered a federal constitutional challenge to Texas statutes prohibiting abortions except for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. 2014In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 117-18 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), the United States Supreme Court considered a federal constitutional challenge to Texas statutes prohibiting abortions except for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.	1	1
Haugland v. City of Bismarckgreen nd · 2012 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012Haugland , at ¶ 31.	1	1
State v. Jandagreen nd · 1986 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009We conclude the State’s comment was an improper comment on Scutchings’s constitutional right to remain silent. [¶14] When a prosecutor improperly comments on a defendant’s right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error analysis: Reviewing courts must ignore harmless errors, including most constitutional violations. [ State v. Janda , 397 N.W.2d 59, 66 (N.D. 1986).] A harmless error is “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights” and “must be disregarded.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the cour	1	1
State v. Klosegreen nd · 2003 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

Case	Cited	Years
In Re RWS green nd · 2007 2 sentences 2015“Federal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). 2013“Federal constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown that they were harmless, but before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).	3	2013–2015
City of Mandan v. Baer green nd · 1998 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).	3	2001–2005
Berger v. New York green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless). 1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).	2	1998–2023
Seymour v. United States green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless). 1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).	2	1998–2023
State v. Sorenson green nd · 2009 2 sentences 2022State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 . “[T]he Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of testimonial hearsay against the accused, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 2022State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 . “[T]he Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of testimonial hearsay against the accused, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.	1	2022–2022
State v. Frankfurth green nd · 2005 1 sentence 2022“A federal constitutional error may be declared harmless if the court is convinced that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Id. [¶17] Even if the hearsay statements are admissible under an exception to the general rule to exclude hearsay from evidence, they may still be inadmissible if they violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.	1	2022–2022
State v. Coppage green nd · 2008 2 sentences 2014We said in Coppage I, 2008 ND 134, ¶ 23 , 751 N.W.2d 254 , that under the law of the case the “lesser-included offense of aggravated assault would merge with the greater offense of attempted murder in this particular case.” However, because the attempted murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1 — 16—01(l)(b) is not a cognizable offense, the aggravated assault offense did not merge into the “greater” offense, and his conviction for aggravated assault is all that remains. [¶ 39] At trial, Coppage’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury on the elements of aggravated assault as a lesser included offens 2014We said in Coppage I, 2008 ND 134, ¶ 23 , 751 N.W.2d 254 , that under the law of the case the “lesser-included offense of aggravated assault would merge with the greater offense of attempted murder in this particular case.” However, because the attempted murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1 — 16—01(l)(b) is not a cognizable offense, the aggravated assault offense did not merge into the “greater” offense, and his conviction for aggravated assault is all that remains. [¶ 39] At trial, Coppage’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury on the elements of aggravated assault as a lesser included offens	1	2014–2014
State v. Rivet green nd · 2008 2 sentences 2009State v. Scutchings, 2009 ND 8, ¶ 14 , 759 N.W.2d 729 (citing State v. Rivet, 2008 ND 145, ¶ 10 , 752 N.W.2d 611 ). 2009State v. Scutchings, 2009 ND 8, ¶ 14 , 759 N.W.2d 729 (citing State v. Rivet, 2008 ND 145, ¶ 10 , 752 N.W.2d 611 ).	1	2009–2009
State v. Scutchings green nd · 2009 1 sentence 2009State v. Scutchings, 2009 ND 8, ¶ 14 , 759 N.W.2d 729 (citing State v. Rivet, 2008 ND 145, ¶ 10 , 752 N.W.2d 611 ).	1	2009–2009
State v. Scutchings green nd · 2009 1 sentence 2009State v. Scutchings, 2009 ND 8, ¶ 14 , 759 N.W.2d 729 (citing State v. Rivet, 2008 ND 145, ¶ 10 , 752 N.W.2d 611 ).	1	2009–2009
State v. Syvertson green nd · 1999 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”). 2005See, e.g., Clark v. State, 2001 ND 9, ¶ 15 , 621 N.W.2d 576 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 38 , 597 N.W.2d 652 ; City of Mandan v. Baer, 1998 ND 101, ¶ 10 , 578 N.W.2d 559 ; State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1995); see also State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39, ¶ 32 , 657 N.W.2d 276 (“a constitutional error may be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).	1	2005–2005
Illinois v. Allen green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless). 1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).	1	1998–1998
Cambridge State Bank v. James green minn · 1992 1 sentence 1992Thus, in Beam six justices agreed with the result that if a new federal constitutional rule is applied to the litigants in the ease in which the rule is announced, the rule applies retroactively to cases that are not barred by procedural requirements or res judicata. 6 See Cambridge State Bank v. James, 480 N.W.2d 647 (Minn.1992) [where the Supreme Court has applied a rule of federal law to the litigants in the law changing case, Beam requires retroactive application of that law to other cases not barred by procedural requirements or res judicata].	1	1992–1992
United States v. Gary Lewis Gallop green ca9 · 1979	1	1982–1982
State v. Frye green nd · 1976	1	1979–1979
Beck v. Ohio green scotus · 1964	1	1976–1976
Wong Sun v. United States green scotus · 1963	1	1976–1976
State v. Erdman green nd · 1969	1	1976–1976
State v. Bragg green nd · 1974	1	1975–1975
State v. Schlittenhardt green nd · 1966	1	1974–1974
Fahy v. Connecticut green scotus · 1963	1	1970–1970
People v. Landgham green illappct · 1970	1	1970–1970
Scholle v. Hare green scotus · 1962	1	1964–1964
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners green scotus · 1964	1	1964–1964
Baker v. Carr green scotus · 1962	1	1964–1964

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-01 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 589 (1966–2026) TX 294 (1968–2026) CT 150 (1966–2026) OR 123 (1967–2026) IN 104 (1969–2026) NY 86 (1967–2025) KS 84 (1969–2024) PA 80 (1967–2025) IL 74 (1967–2026) VA 73 (1920–2026) WA 69 (1961–2025) GA 58 (1976–2025) NJ 54 (1967–2025) OH 53 (1968–2025) AL 50 (1947–2024) NH 48 (1983–2017) LA 45 (1969–2018) KY 44 (1968–2025) UT 44 (1988–2025) MI 43 (1966–2025) MD 39 (1962–2024) ND 38 (1964–2025) NC 38 (1971–2024) MO 37 (1958–2020) IA 37 (1974–2023) TN 32 (1970–2025) ID 32 (1970–2021) MA 31 (1967–2025) FL 31 (1936–2025) OK 29 (1962–2025) MT 27 (1971–2010) NM 27 (1967–2025) CO 25 (1970–2026) AZ 25 (1971–2021) DC 25 (1968–2022) WI 24 (1967–2026) MN 24 (1969–2024) MS 24 (1983–2012) AK 20 (1969–2026) RI 19 (1968–2008) WY 17 (1977–2019) WV 17 (1978–2025) AR 15 (1978–2018) ME 13 (1973–2025) SD 13 (1977–2022) SC 11 (1987–2025) NV 10 (1967–2022) VT 10 (1978–2015) NE 10 (1982–2023) HI 9 (1973–2024) DE 7 (1971–2022) VI 4 (2010–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check