Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. Californiagreen2 sentences1984Injudicious application of the harmless error doctrine tends "to shield from attack errors of a most fundamental nature and thus to deprive many defendants of basic constitutional rights." Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 257 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 289-90 (1969) (Brennan, J., dissenting). 1984Injudicious application of the harmless error doctrine tends "to shield from attack errors of a most fundamental nature and thus to deprive many defendants of basic constitutional rights." Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 257 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 289-90 (1969) (Brennan, J., dissenting). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Willegreen1 sentence1997In State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990), appeal after remand on other grounds, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), the court found the following with respect to the application of the harmless error analysis to confrontation errors: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davidgreen1 sentence1991State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428, 433 (La.1982) (on rehearing); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen1 sentence1991State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428, 433 (La.1982) (on rehearing); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sonniergreen1 sentence1991State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428, 433 (La.1982) (on rehearing); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 (La.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Bumper v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences1980Justice Harlan, concurring in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 552 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1793 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 804 (1968) reminds us that "[c]rediting or discrediting evidence is the function of the trier of fact." Whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction is no more a question of fact than other rules applied by us routinely that call for careful consideration of the evidence. [2] The Chapman harmless error approach is also more consistent with the notion that all accused persons are entitled to a fair trial, even if gui 1980Justice Harlan, concurring in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 552 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1793 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 804 (1968) reminds us that "[c]rediting or discrediting evidence is the function of the trier of fact." Whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction is no more a question of fact than other rules applied by us routinely that call for careful consideration of the evidence. [2] The Chapman harmless error approach is also more consistent with the notion that all accused persons are entitled to a fair trial, even if gui | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2004Delaware *777 v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 2004Delaware *777 v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). | 7 | 1990–2004 |
United States v. Hasting
green
2 sentences1991That analysis "mandates consideration of the entire record prior to reversing a conviction for constitutional errors that may be harmless." United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 , 508 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 1980 n. 7, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 , 106 n. 7 (1983). 1991That analysis "mandates consideration of the entire record prior to reversing a conviction for constitutional errors that may be harmless." United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 , 508 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 1980 n. 7, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 , 106 n. 7 (1983). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
State v. Legendre
green
1 sentence2015However, as noted in State v. Legendre, 05-1469, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/27/06), 942 So.2d 45, 52 , confrontation errors, including Crawford violations, are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2004In Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), the Supreme Court stated that the test for harmless error "is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." In Boswell, we set forth the factors to be considered in assessing whether the error was harmless: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. 2004In Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), the Supreme Court stated that the test for harmless error "is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." In Boswell, we set forth the factors to be considered in assessing whether the error was harmless: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Wille
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990), appeal after remand on other grounds, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), the court found the following with respect to the application of the harmless error analysis to confrontation errors: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Wille v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1997In State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990), appeal after remand on other grounds, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), the court found the following with respect to the application of the harmless error analysis to confrontation errors: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. 1997In State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990), appeal after remand on other grounds, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), the court found the following with respect to the application of the harmless error analysis to confrontation errors: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Dolenc v. Fulcomer
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990), appeal after remand on other grounds, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992), the court found the following with respect to the application of the harmless error analysis to confrontation errors: Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Rose v. Clark
red
2 sentences1991In essence, the Court's rationale was as follows: (1) Ordinarily, a lay jury will adhere to the instructions given to it by the trial court; (2) The malice instruction in this case violated the respondent's right to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) But, apart from the erroneous malice instruction, "the jury was clearly instructed that it had to find respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of both first- and second-degree murder." Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3107 ; (4) When the jury was instructed to presume malice from predicate fac 1991In essence, the Court's rationale was as follows: (1) Ordinarily, a lay jury will adhere to the instructions given to it by the trial court; (2) The malice instruction in this case violated the respondent's right to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) But, apart from the erroneous malice instruction, "the jury was clearly instructed that it had to find respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of both first- and second-degree murder." Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3107 ; (4) When the jury was instructed to presume malice from predicate fac | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Arizona v. Fulminante
green
2 sentences1991The Chief Justice, writing for himself and four associate justices, concluded, in Arizona v. Fulminante, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), that the admission of an involuntary confession at trial is subject to the Chapman harmless error analysis. 1991The Chief Justice, writing for himself and four associate justices, concluded, in Arizona v. Fulminante, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), that the admission of an involuntary confession at trial is subject to the Chapman harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Culberth
green
1 sentence1991State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428, 433 (La.1982) (on rehearing); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 (La.1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Watson
green
1 sentence1991State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428, 433 (La.1982) (on rehearing); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1371 (La.1980) (on rehearing); See State v. David, 425 So.2d 1241 (La.1983); State v. Watson, 423 So.2d 1130 (La.1982); State v. Culberth, 390 So.2d 847 (La.1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences1991The Supreme Court held that the officer’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay but further held that the error in admitting the testimony was “harmless beyond reasonable doubt.” The court used a Chapman harmless error analysis to reach its conclusion based on Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1991The Supreme Court held that the officer’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay but further held that the error in admitting the testimony was “harmless beyond reasonable doubt.” The court used a Chapman harmless error analysis to reach its conclusion based on Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Smith
red
1 sentence1989State v. Smith, 554 So.2d 676 (La.1989). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Satterwhite v. Texas
green
2 sentences1989In Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the Chapman harmless error rule applies during the penalty phase of a capital case to the erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the sixth amendment right set forth in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). [4] Recently, this court applied the harmless error rule to the erroneous and improper arguments of the state, during the penalty phase, which presented to the jury inadmissible unsworn testimony to facts outside t 1989In Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the Chapman harmless error rule applies during the penalty phase of a capital case to the erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the sixth amendment right set forth in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). [4] Recently, this court applied the harmless error rule to the erroneous and improper arguments of the state, during the penalty phase, which presented to the jury inadmissible unsworn testimony to facts outside t | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences1989In Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the Chapman harmless error rule applies during the penalty phase of a capital case to the erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the sixth amendment right set forth in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). [4] Recently, this court applied the harmless error rule to the erroneous and improper arguments of the state, during the penalty phase, which presented to the jury inadmissible unsworn testimony to facts outside t 1989In Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct. 1792 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that the Chapman harmless error rule applies during the penalty phase of a capital case to the erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony in violation of the sixth amendment right set forth in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). [4] Recently, this court applied the harmless error rule to the erroneous and improper arguments of the state, during the penalty phase, which presented to the jury inadmissible unsworn testimony to facts outside t | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Gibson
green
1 sentence1983Gibson, supra. The court in Gibson , quoting Chapman , states the test: “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction” and that “the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.... ” (At page 428) Applying these principles to the present case, we find the trial court’s error in not compelling the attendance of these witnesses was harmless. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.
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.