13 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gibsongreen2 sentences1995In State v. Caston, 583 So.2d 42, 47 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 585 So.2d 575 (La.1991), the court explained the harmless error test to be applied to evidence improperly admitted, by quoting State v. Bailey, 514 So.2d 741, 743 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987): "The test for harmless error established in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980) was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and consists of a two prong analysis: 1) the reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the 1991The test for harmless error established in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La. 1980) was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and consists of a two prong analysis: 1) the reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction, and 2) the court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences1989The test for harmless error, adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, states that "the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the admission or exclusion of certain evidence, depending on the case `might have contributed to the conviction.'" State v. Martin, 458 So.2d 454, 459 (La.1984), citing State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421, 427 (La.1980). 1987State v. Martin, supra. The defendant admitted on the stand that he intentionally set fire to the victim's trailer. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Crotwellgreen2 sentences2006The test for harmless error is whether the guilty verdict "was surely unattributable to the error." State v. Crotwell, 2000-2551, p. 13 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/01), 818 So.2d 34, 44 . 2006The test for harmless error is whether the guilty verdict "was surely unattributable to the error." State v. Crotwell, 2000-2551 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/8/01), 818 So.2d 34, 44 (quoting State v. Ellis, 99-0425 (La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baileygreen1 sentence1995In State v. Caston, 583 So.2d 42, 47 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 585 So.2d 575 (La.1991), the court explained the harmless error test to be applied to evidence improperly admitted, by quoting State v. Bailey, 514 So.2d 741, 743 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987): "The test for harmless error established in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980) was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and consists of a two prong analysis: 1) the reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castongreen1 sentence1995In State v. Caston, 583 So.2d 42, 47 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 585 So.2d 575 (La.1991), the court explained the harmless error test to be applied to evidence improperly admitted, by quoting State v. Bailey, 514 So.2d 741, 743 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987): "The test for harmless error established in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980) was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and consists of a two prong analysis: 1) the reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
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. | 5 | 2000–2022 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2001The test for harmless error was first announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 2001The test for harmless error was first announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 4 | 1987–2001 |
State v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2006App. 1st Cir.12/28/99), 756 So.2d 418, 421 ). 2001The test for harmless error is whether the guilty verdict "was surely unattributable to the error." State v. Ellis, 99-0425, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/99), 756 So.2d 418, 421 . | 2 | 2001–2006 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2004State v. Johnson, 94-1379, p. 14 (La.11/17/95), 664 So.2d 94, 100 ; Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). 2002State v. Johnson, 94-1379, p. 18 (La.11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 102 . | 2 | 2002–2004 |
State v. Morgan
green
1 sentence2022Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 US, 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Morgan, 99-1895 (La. 6/29/01), 791 So.2d 100 , 104 (per curiam). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Bell
green
1 sentence2001In State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La 12/8/00), 776 So.2d 418, 423 , the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that the test for harmless error is "whether the reviewing court can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict rendered by this jury, who did in fact hear the inadmissible evidence, was surely unattributable to that highly prejudicial evidence ..." (Emphasis in the Original). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Trosclair
green
1 sentence1995In State v. Caston, 583 So.2d 42, 47 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 585 So.2d 575 (La.1991), the court explained the harmless error test to be applied to evidence improperly admitted, by quoting State v. Bailey, 514 So.2d 741, 743 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987): "The test for harmless error established in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980) was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and consists of a two prong analysis: 1) the reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.