two prong test in Louisiana

2025Casimer, 113 So.3d at 1141 .

2023To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two- prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra. Casimer, 113 So.3d at 1141 .

1995In 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

1995In 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

1995In 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.

1998The trial judge initially stated that he felt the two prong test of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) had been met, and that he would deny the motion to suppress.

1998The trial judge initially stated that he felt the two prong test of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) had been met, and that he would deny the motion to suppress.

1998In 1989, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the two prong test of Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to determine "whether the discretionary function exception applies in specific fact situations." Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 15 (La.1989).

1998In 1989, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the two prong test of Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), to determine "whether the discretionary function exception applies in specific fact situations." Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 15 (La.1989).

1995Grissom, supra. To establish that his attorney was ineffective, the defendant must first show that counsel's performance was deficient.

1995A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is analyzed under the two prong test developed by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Grissom, 624 So.2d 476 (La.App.2d Cir.1993).

1987In discussing its rejection of the two prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , the Court, in Gates, supra 103 S.Ct. at 2328-2330 , stated: This totality-of-the circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause than is any rigid demand that specific “tests” be satisfied by every informant’s tip. ...

1987In discussing its rejection of the two prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , the Court, in Gates, supra 103 S.Ct. at 2328-2330 , stated: This totality-of-the circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior treatment of probable cause than is any rigid demand that specific “tests” be satisfied by every informant’s tip. ...

2023“In order to prevail, the defendant must show both that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) he was prejudiced by the deficiency.” Williams, 17-0544, p. 23, 240 So.3d at 368 (quoting Quezada, 13-1318, p. 11, 141 So.3d at 915 ).

2023“In order to prevail, the defendant must show both that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) he was prejudiced by the deficiency.” Williams, 17-0544, p. 23, 240 So.3d at 368 (quoting Quezada, 13-1318, p. 11, 141 So.3d at 915 ).

2006Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. United Healthcare of La., Inc., 03-1662, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04); 871 So.2d 380, 388 .

2004Id.

2003See, e.g., State v. Fuller, 454 So.2d 119 (La.1984); State v. Wilson, 2000-1736 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/14/01) , 803 So.2d 102 .

1995In 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

1994See In re Stewart, supra; Tutorship of Primeaux, supra. Lastly, the burden is a "strict one" in which the non-parent seeking custody must show "compelling reasons by convincing proof that custody to the parent would result in substantial harm.

1987Hobbs, supra. Jurisprudence on this issue has yielded a two prong test.

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983Trustworthiness is measured against the two prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), which requires that the information provided include facts relating to both the "basis of knowledge" and the "veracity" of the information. [2] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).

1983Trustworthiness is measured against the two prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), which requires that the information provided include facts relating to both the "basis of knowledge" and the "veracity" of the information. [2] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore

1983State v. Rodriguez, 379 So.2d 1084 (La.1980); State v. Morgan, 238 La. 829 , 116 So.2d 682 (La.1960); National Bank of Commerce v. Louisiana State University, 206 La. 913 , 20 So.2d 264 (1944); City of Baton Rouge v. Shilg, 198 La. 994 , 5 So.2d 312 (1941). *381 As announced by this court in the case of State v. Broom, 439 So.2d 357 (La.1983), authored by Justice Calogero and handed down this date, the determination of whether the delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency adequately protects against the exercise of arbitrary power by the administrative body and therefore