belief error in Louisiana

2022Hickerson recognized that the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the “harmless error” test established by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967), which “asks whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction and requires that the reviewing court be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., 2019-1077, p. 21, 312 So.3d at 1139-40.

2022Hickerson recognized that the Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted the “harmless error” test established by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967), which “asks whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction and requires that the reviewing court be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., 2019-1077, p. 21, 312 So.3d at 1139-40.

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.

2016Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Juniors, 03-2425 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 .

2009As pointed out in Juniors, 915 So.2d at 331 , “[t]he test is whether there is a reasonable possibility the error might have contributed to the conviction and whether the court can declare a belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2014Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rehearing denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006).

2008Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rehearing denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006).

2014Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rehearing denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006).

2008Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), rehearing denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967); State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La.6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006).

2007In applying the Chapman test, the reviewing court must determine "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction and requires that the reviewing court be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Finch, supra, 733 So.2d at 725 , citing State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La.1992).

1999State v. Finch, 31,888 (La.App.2d Cir. 5/5/99), 733 So.2d 716 ; State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La. 1992).

2023State v. Magee, 11-574 (La. 9/28/12), 103 So.3d 285 , cert. denied, 571 U.S. 830 , 134 S.Ct. 56 , 187 L.Ed.2d 49 (2013). 23-KA-167 32 Under the facts of this case, and given that this Court has found the evidence introduced at trial sufficient to convict defendant (without relying on the dash- camera footage at issue), we find that any error concerning the dash-camera footage did not contribute to the verdict and that the error, if any, would be harmless given the evidence presented against defendant in this case.

2013The harmless error test asks “whether there is a reasonable possibility the error might have contributed to the conviction and whether the court can declare a belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Magee , 11-0574, p. 45, 103 So.3d at 318 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).

2007In applying the Chapman test, the reviewing court must determine "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction and requires that the reviewing court be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Finch, supra, 733 So.2d at 725 , citing State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La.1992).

1999State v. Finch, 31,888 (La.App.2d Cir. 5/5/99), 733 So.2d 716 ; State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La. 1992).

2007In applying the Chapman test, the reviewing court must determine "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction and requires that the reviewing court be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Finch, supra, 733 So.2d at 725 , citing State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La.1992).

1999State v. Finch, 31,888 (La.App.2d Cir. 5/5/99), 733 So.2d 716 ; State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992), writ denied, 607 So.2d 564 (La. 1992).

2023State v. Magee, 11-574 (La. 9/28/12), 103 So.3d 285 , cert. denied, 571 U.S. 830 , 134 S.Ct. 56 , 187 L.Ed.2d 49 (2013). 23-KA-167 32 Under the facts of this case, and given that this Court has found the evidence introduced at trial sufficient to convict defendant (without relying on the dash- camera footage at issue), we find that any error concerning the dash-camera footage did not contribute to the verdict and that the error, if any, would be harmless given the evidence presented against defendant in this case.

2023State v. Magee, 11-574 (La. 9/28/12), 103 So.3d 285 , cert. denied, 571 U.S. 830 , 134 S.Ct. 56 , 187 L.Ed.2d 49 (2013). 23-KA-167 32 Under the facts of this case, and given that this Court has found the evidence introduced at trial sufficient to convict defendant (without relying on the dash- camera footage at issue), we find that any error concerning the dash-camera footage did not contribute to the verdict and that the error, if any, would be harmless given the evidence presented against defendant in this case.

2023State v. Magee, 11-574 (La. 9/28/12), 103 So.3d 285 , cert. denied, 571 U.S. 830 , 134 S.Ct. 56 , 187 L.Ed.2d 49 (2013). 23-KA-167 32 Under the facts of this case, and given that this Court has found the evidence introduced at trial sufficient to convict defendant (without relying on the dash- camera footage at issue), we find that any error concerning the dash-camera footage did not contribute to the verdict and that the error, if any, would be harmless given the evidence presented against defendant in this case.

2013“The reviewing court must find the verdict actually rendered by this jury was surely unattributable to the error.” Id. at 11-0574, p. 45-46, 103 So.3d at 318 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)). 2 In making this determination, a reviewing court should consider “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or | ^contradicting the testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the

2013“The reviewing court must find the verdict actually rendered by this jury was surely unattributable to the error.” Id. at 11-0574, p. 45-46, 103 So.3d at 318 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)). 2 In making this determination, a reviewing court should consider “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or | ^contradicting the testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the

2006State v. *512 Allen, 2003-2418, p. 19 (La.6/29/05), 913 So.2d 788 , citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

2001To find harmless error, the Court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and to state that the verdict rendered was "surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Sanders, 93-0001 (La.11/30/94), 648 So.2d 1272, 1286-1287 , cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1246 , 116 S.Ct. 2504 , 135 L.Ed.2d 194 (1996); State v. Code, supra at 1384-1385 .

1997The reviewing court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clayton, 570 So.2d at 526 .

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

1991Code of Criminal Procedure Article 921 provides that "[a] judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court because of any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights of the accused." Often referred to as the "harmless error" rule, our Supreme Court, in the recent case of State v. West, 568 So.2d 1019 (La.1990), stated: "The well settled standard of harmless error, as set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967), and adopted by this court in State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980), focuses on `whethe

1990Id.