plain error in Louisiana

2016State v. Williamson, supra; State v. Green, supra. The exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is not a plain error rule of general application.

2011Despite the contemporaneous objection rule, defense argues that this error is also permissible under Williamson, supra. As determined previously in this assignment, the limited exception of the plain error rule does not apply in this instance either.

2003Commenting on this rule in Kaisha v. U.S. Philips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 , 114 S.Ct. 425 , 126 L.Ed.2d 396 (1993), the Court stated: Even before the first version of Rule 14.1(a) was adopted, we indicated our unwillingness to decide issues not presented in petitions for certiorari.

2003Commenting on this rule in Kaisha v. U.S. Philips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 , 114 S.Ct. 425 , 126 L.Ed.2d 396 (1993), the Court stated: Even before the first version of Rule 14.1(a) was adopted, we indicated our unwillingness to decide issues not presented in petitions for certiorari.

1994This court has not created or recognized a plain error rule of general application." *464 We too declined to apply the Williamson exception in State v. Latiolais, 453 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), writ denied, 458 So.2d 125 citing State v. Belgard and Chief Justice Calogero's concurring opinion in which he mentioned Williamson and noted: "This case is distinguishable from Williamson .

1993This circuit faced this issue in State v. Latiolais, 453 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 125 (La.1984).

1994This court has not created or recognized a plain error rule of general application." *464 We too declined to apply the Williamson exception in State v. Latiolais, 453 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984), writ denied, 458 So.2d 125 citing State v. Belgard and Chief Justice Calogero's concurring opinion in which he mentioned Williamson and noted: "This case is distinguishable from Williamson .

1993This circuit faced this issue in State v. Latiolais, 453 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 125 (La.1984).

1964State v. Joseph, 143 La. 428 , 78 So. 663 , L.R.A. 1918E, 1062 .

1964State v. Joseph, 143 La. 428 , 78 So. 663 , L.R.A. 1918E, 1062 .

1961We must next consider the question of whether or not this interlocutory order may have caused “irreparable injury.” In the case of Feitel v. Feitel, 169 La. 384 , 125 So. 280 , the Supreme Court provided the following test: “The character of the injury caused by an interlocutory judgment, even when it is signed by the Judge, must be tested under the following plain rule: ‘If the decree of the appellate court can restore the parties, without the loss of any right under the pleadings, to the identical position which they respectively occupied before the rendering of the interlocutory decree or o

1961We must next consider the question of whether or not this interlocutory order may have caused “irreparable injury.” In the case of Feitel v. Feitel, 169 La. 384 , 125 So. 280 , the Supreme Court provided the following test: “The character of the injury caused by an interlocutory judgment, even when it is signed by the Judge, must be tested under the following plain rule: ‘If the decree of the appellate court can restore the parties, without the loss of any right under the pleadings, to the identical position which they respectively occupied before the rendering of the interlocutory decree or o

1945In denying the writ the court said: “The character of the injury caused by an interlocutory judgment, even when it is signed by the Judge, must be tested under the following plain rule: ‘If the decree of the appellate court can restore the parties, without the loss of any right under the pleadings, to the identical position which they respectively occupied before the rendering of the interlocutory decree or order complained of, the injury to either party is clearly not irreparable, and therefore the right to appeal does not exist.’ Fields v. Gagné, 33 La.Ann. 339 .” In Feitel v. Feitel, 169 La

1945In denying the writ the court said: "The character of the injury caused by an interlocutory judgment, even when it is signed by the Judge, must be tested under the following plain rule: `If the decree of the appellate court can restore the parties, without the loss of any right under the pleadings, to the identical position which they respectively occupied before the rendering of the interlocutory decree or order complained of, the injury to either party is *Page 634 clearly not irreparable, and therefore the right to appeal does not exist.' Fields v. Gagne, 33 La.Ann. 339 ." In Feitel v. Feit

2016State v. Williamson, supra; State v. Green, supra. The exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is not a plain error rule of general application.

2009Id., 598 So.2d at 617-18 .

2009Id., 598 So.2d at 617-18 .

1999Citing State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), this court in State v. Chisolm, 95-2028 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/12/97) , 691 So.2d 251 , writ denied, 97-0938 (La.10/3/97), 701 So.2d 195 , refused to apply the plain error rule where the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury that specific intent to inflict great bodily harm was an element of attempted second degree murder.

1999Citing State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), this court in State v. Chisolm, 95-2028 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/12/97) , 691 So.2d 251 , writ denied, 97-0938 (La.10/3/97), 701 So.2d 195 , refused to apply the plain error rule where the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury that specific intent to inflict great bodily harm was an element of attempted second degree murder.

1991State v. Dobson, 578 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1991).

1987United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 . [4] Describing the problem in terms of the possible facial unconstitutionality of the statute avoided a direct confrontation with the contemporaneous objection rule.

1987United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 . [4] Describing the problem in terms of the possible facial unconstitutionality of the statute avoided a direct confrontation with the contemporaneous objection rule.

1987United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 . [4] Describing the problem in terms of the possible facial unconstitutionality of the statute avoided a direct confrontation with the contemporaneous objection rule.

1987United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 . [4] Describing the problem in terms of the possible facial unconstitutionality of the statute avoided a direct confrontation with the contemporaneous objection rule.

1964Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812 , 25 So.2d 601 ; State ex rel.

1964Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812 , 25 So.2d 601 ; State ex rel.

1964In this respect our jurisprudence was well epitomized in the case of In re Coon, La.App., 141 So.2d 112 , and the authorities therein cited, in the following language: “In the interpretation of a constitutional article the courts are not bound by a literal interpretation where to do so would lead to an absurd conclusion or to a plain violation of the spirit and purpose of the enactment.

1961Pflug v. Judge, 35 La.Ann. 765 , and Fields v. Gagne, 33 La.Ann. 339, 340 .

1937Ann. [339] 340.” In the case of Bossier’s Heirs v. Hollingsworth & Jackson, 117 La. 221 , 41 So. 553, 555 , the court, after quoting the articles of the Code of Practice, said: “We therefore usually understand by the term ‘final judgment’ that judgment which, disposing of all the issues not- previously disposed of by interlocutory judgments, is the last judgment which the court renders.

1937Ann. [339] 340.” In the case of Bossier’s Heirs v. Hollingsworth & Jackson, 117 La. 221 , 41 So. 553, 555 , the court, after quoting the articles of the Code of Practice, said: “We therefore usually understand by the term ‘final judgment’ that judgment which, disposing of all the issues not- previously disposed of by interlocutory judgments, is the last judgment which the court renders.

1936Ikerd v. Judge of Eighth District Court, 35 La.Ann. 212 , is cited and approved in State ex rel.