harmless error in Louisiana

2025State v. Willie, 559 So.2d 1321,1332 . “‘Harmless error analysis begins with the premise 20 that the evidence is otherwise sufficient to sustain the conviction if viewed from the perspective of a rational fact finder and asks whether beyond a reasonable doubt the error could not have contributed to the verdict actually returned by the defendant's jury.’” State v. Campbell, 15-0017, p.27 (La.

2025In conducting “a harmless error analysis, factors to consider include the importance of the witness’ testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of corroborating evidence, the extent of cross-examination permitted, and [the] overall strength of the [S]tate’s case.” Edwards, 2021-0494, p.18, 336 So.3d at 490 (citing Wille, 559 So.2d at 1332 ).

2013“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence ... and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).

2013“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence ... and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).

2025State v. [Silas] Johnson, 94-1379, p. 14 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 100 , citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). [Silas] Johnson distinguished between “trial errors,” which may be reviewed for harmless error, and “structural errors,” which defy analysis under the harmless error doctrine.

2024Harmless error exists when “the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Johnson, 94-1379 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 102 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)).

2025Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 921 provides, “A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused.” In determining whether the substantial rights of the accused have been violated, the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the harmless error test announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and refined by Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).

2025Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 921 provides, “A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused.” In determining whether the substantial rights of the accused have been violated, the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the harmless error test announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and refined by Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).

2019“A reversal of a defendant's conviction is appropriate only if, pursuant to a harmless error analysis, there is “a reasonable possibility that the evidence might have contributed to the verdict.” State v. Skipper, 11-1346, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/10/12), 101 So.3d 537, 544 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421, 426-27 (La. 1980)).

2015Under the harmless-error test of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), the question is whether it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. at 828 ; see also State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421, 426-27 (La.1980).

1991State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202, 1204-5 (La.1981); State v. Mason, 447 So.2d 1134, 1139 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984). [2] There is a discrepancy between the sentencing transcript and the minutes.

1991Nevertheless, citing State v. Mason, 447 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), which holds that such failure on the part of the trial court is harmless error where the defendant does not show actual prejudice, the defendant has admitted the absence of prejudice and has abandoned this assignment of error.

2025Under a harmless error analysis, the appellate court must determine whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that “the guilty verdict actually rendered . . . was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Wells, 2014-1701, p. 14 (La. 12/8/15), 209 So. 3d 709, 717-18 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)) (other citation omitted).

2025Under a harmless error analysis, the appellate court must determine whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that “the guilty verdict actually rendered . . . was surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Wells, 2014-1701, p. 14 (La. 12/8/15), 209 So. 3d 709, 717-18 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)) (other citation omitted).

2018In State v. Cage , 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 874 , 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an improper jury instruction is a trial error and is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2013In State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 874 , 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an improper jury instruction is a trial error and is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2018State v. Maise , 00-1158 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So.2d 1141 , 1152 , overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Bernard , 09-1178 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 1025 , 1030.

2018See State v. Maise, 2000-1158, p. 8-9 (La. 1/15/02), 805 So.2d 1141 , 1147-1148.

2001In State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1384 (La.1993), ce rt. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that error resulting from the improper admission of an expert’s opinion concerning the Lultimate issue of a defendant’s guilt is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2001Also see State v. Code, 627 So.2d 1373, 1384 (La.1993), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court said "it is reversible error for an expert to testify as to an ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt, even when couched in terms of a hypothetical situation." In Code , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that error resulting from the improper admission of an expert's opinion concerning the ultimate issue of a defendant's guilt is subject to a harmless error analysis. 627 So.2d at 1384 .

2022Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed. 2d 674 ( 1986); State v. Burbank, 2002- 1407 ( La. 04/ 23/ 04), 872 So. 2d 1049, 1051 ( per curiam).

2008Confrontation errors are subject to the harmless-error analysis, as reiterated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Burbank , XXXX-XXXX, p. 3, 872 So.2d at 1051 .

2019This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929).

2019This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929).

2019This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929).

2019This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929).

2014In Harris, this court explained why the harmless error standard does not apply in this context as follows: Unlike the defendant in [Arizona vj Fulminante, [ 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ], Mr. Harris entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s pre-trial rulings.

2014In Harris, this court explained why the harmless error standard does not apply in this context as follows: Unlike the defendant in [Arizona vj Fulminante, [ 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ], Mr. Harris entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s pre-trial rulings.

2018In State v. Cage , 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 874 , 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an improper jury instruction is a trial error and is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2013In State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 874 , 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that an improper jury instruction is a trial error and is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2026State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La. 3/22/02), 818 So. 2d 720 .

2002Since this application has been pending in this court the Louisiana Supreme Court decided State v. Hampton, 00-0522 (La.3/22/02), 818 So.2d 720 , wherein the Court found that the violation of the right to testify was a structural error for which a harmless test could not be used.

2025State v. Higginbotham, 11-0564, p. 3 (La. 5/6/11), 60 So. 3d 621, 623 .

2013State v. Higginbotham, 2011-0564, p. 3 (La.5/6/11), 60 So.3d 621, 623 (Harmless error exists where the guilty verdict actually rendered was “surely unattributable” to the error.).

2018See Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ; State v. Robinson , 2001-0273, p.9 (La. 05/17/02), 817 So.2d 1131 ; State v. Henderson , 2013-0526, p.12 (La.

2014Robinson, supra. Confrontation errors are subject to a harmless error analysis.

2014“Nevertheless, if the evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, the trial court’s ruling is subject to the harmless error analysis.” State v. Hugle, 2011-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 3 The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. at 2081 .

2014“Nevertheless, if the evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, the trial court’s ruling is subject to the harmless error analysis.” State v. Hugle, 11-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 .