9 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2001Noting that the prosecutor's comment was impermissible, this court nevertheless affirmed Landreth's conviction, stating as follows: In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967), the Supreme Court declared that references to a defendant's failure to testify violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but can be harmless error if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict. [Citation omitted.] Practical application of the Chapman test involves excising the improper remarks and examining the remaining e 2001Noting that the prosecutor's comment was impermissible, this court nevertheless affirmed Landreth's conviction, stating as follows: In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967), the Supreme Court declared that references to a defendant's failure to testify violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but can be harmless error if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict. [Citation omitted.] Practical application of the Chapman test involves excising the improper remarks and examining the remaining e | 2 | 4 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. 209 , 549 S.W.3d 346 . | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Californiagreen2 sentences1998In Bradley v. State, supra, this court discussed what is required to find that a prosecutor’s improper comment on the defendant’s constitutional right not to testify was harmless error: In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the Supreme Court declared that references to a defendant’s failure to testify violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but can be harmless error if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict. [Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965).] Practical application of the Chapman test involves excising 1998In Bradley v. State, supra, this court discussed what is required to find that a prosecutor’s improper comment on the defendant’s constitutional right not to testify was harmless error: In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), the Supreme Court declared that references to a defendant’s failure to testify violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but can be harmless error if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict. [Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965).] Practical application of the Chapman test involves excising | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. State
green
2 sentences2005Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 266 , 773 S.W.2d 413 (1989). 2005Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 266 , 773 S.W.2d 413 (1989). | 4 | 1995–2005 |
Chapman v. Bevilacqua
green
2 sentences2006"Chapman challenge[d] both the expenditure of federal funds processed through the City's general fund, as well as the use of the City's general fund money to pay a de minimus portion of some city employees' salaries to administer the program." Id. at 268 . 2006Her "argument [wa]s that the City unlawfully paid some employees to write checks for the federal housing programs, although the employees were paid from the City's general fund rather than from the federal funds." Id. at 273 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ward v. State
green
2 sentences1987In Ward v. State, 272 Ark. 99 , 612 S.W.2d 118 (1981), the violation of the Doyle post-arrest silence doctrine was so egregious that it could not be harmless, so we did not even consider applying the Chapman rule. 1987In Ward v. State, 272 Ark. 99 , 612 S.W.2d 118 (1981), the violation of the Doyle post-arrest silence doctrine was so egregious that it could not be harmless, so we did not even consider applying the Chapman rule. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.