test for determining harmless error in Louisiana

48 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Huglegreen lactapp · 2012 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025 2 sentences 2014“Nevertheless, if the evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, the trial court’s ruling is subject to the harmless error analysis.” State v. Hugle, 2011-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 3 The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. at 2081 . 2013“The test for determining harmless error is whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” State v. Hugle, 11-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 , quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).	4	5
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 25 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–2025 2 sentences 2019The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). 2019The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).	1	25
State v. Morgangreen la · 2001 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2005 2 sentences 2005The test for determining harmless error is "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 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 . 2004Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Morgan , 99-1895 at p. 6, 791 So.2d at 104.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Johnson green la · 1995 2 sentences 2019App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12) 104 So.3d 598, 613 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)). “[T]rial error occurs during the presentation of the case to the [jury] and may be quantitatively assessed in context of the other evidence to determine whether its admission at trial is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Johnson, 1994-1379 p. 14 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94, 100-01 . 2002The test for determining harmless error is whether the verdict actually rendered in the case was surely "unattributable to the error." Id.	13	2002–2019
State v. Casey green la · 2000 2 sentences 2025State v. Colby, supra. The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S. Ct. 104 , 6 148 L. 2018When such evidence is erroneously admitted the reviewing court must determine *1036 whether or not the error is harmless under the particular facts of the case: The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt , State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022 , cert denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S.Ct. 104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000), or "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182	10	2008–2025
Casey v. Louisiana green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2025State v. Colby, supra. The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S. Ct. 104 , 6 148 L. 2025State v. Colby, supra. The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S. Ct. 104 , 6 148 L.	7	2008–2025
Katherine L. v. Sonoma County Social Services Department green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2025State v. Colby, supra. The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So. 2d 1022 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S. Ct. 104 , 6 148 L. 2018When such evidence is erroneously admitted the reviewing court must determine *1036 whether or not the error is harmless under the particular facts of the case: The test for determining harmless error is whether the reviewing court may conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt , State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 1/26/00), 775 So.2d 1022 , cert denied, 531 U.S. 840 , 121 S.Ct. 104 , 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000), or "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error." Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182	7	2008–2025
State v. Pittman green lactapp · 1996 2 sentences 2003Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) ; State v. Pittman, 95-382 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/1/96), 683 So.2d 748 , 758 . 1998Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); State v. Pittman, 95-382 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/1/96) , 683 So.2d 748 .	2	1998–2003
State v. Battie green lactapp · 1999 2 sentences 2003State v. Battie, 98-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/19/99) , 735 So.2d 844, 852 . 2000State v. Battie, 98-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 844, 852 , writ denied, 99-1785 (La.11/24/99), 750 So.2d 980 .	2	2000–2003
State of Louisiana v. Tyrone T. Duckett neutral lactapp · 2019 1 sentence 2023App. 4 Cir. 12/18/19), 288 So.3d 167 , 174 (quoting State v. Hugle, 11-1121, p. 19 (La.	1	2023–2023
State v. Williams green lactapp · 2002 1 sentence 2016Williams, 833 So.2d at 508 .	1	2016–2016
Chapman v. California yellow scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2014“Nevertheless, if the evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, the trial court’s ruling is subject to the harmless error analysis.” State v. Hugle, 2011-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 3 The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. at 2081 . 2014“Nevertheless, if the evidence was erroneously admitted at trial, the trial court’s ruling is subject to the harmless error analysis.” State v. Hugle, 2011-1121, p. 19 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 104 So.3d 598, 613 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 3 The test for determining harmless error is “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at 279 , 113 S.Ct. at 2081 .	1	2014–2014
State v. Hotard neutral lactapp · 2007 1 sentence 2012Id.	1	2012–2012
State v. Foret green la · 1993 1 sentence 2009State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993).	1	2009–2009
State v. Marsalis green lactapp · 2005 1 sentence 2009Id.	1	2009–2009
State v. West neutral la · 2001 1 sentence 2007Id.	1	2007–2007
State v. Richard neutral lactapp · 2002 1 sentence 2002State v. Richard, 807 So.2d at 1137 .	1	2002–2002
State v. Donald green la · 2000 1 sentence 2001In State v. Donald, 99-3612 (La.12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1054 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently stated that "[a]part from any considerations of res gestae or integral act evidence, `matters which are ... logically relevant to issues before the jury should not be excluded merely because they show the accused has committed other offenses.'" [5] Furthermore, on appeal, an improper reference to other crimes evidence is subject to the harmless error rule. [6] The test for determining harmless error is whether the verdict actually rendered in that case was surely unattributable to the error. [7] As	1	2001–2001
State v. Battie green la · 1999 1 sentence 2000State v. Battie, 98-1296 (La.App. 5 Cir.5/19/99), 735 So.2d 844, 852 , writ denied, 99-1785 (La.11/24/99), 750 So.2d 980 .	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (17) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:10 (11) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:27 (9) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:31 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:130.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:43.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:966 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

LA 48 (1998–2025) AZ 7 (1982–2019) GA 4 (1996–2024) KS 2 (2012–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance