Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Legendre, 942 So. 2d 45.

13 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Gary Allen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
App. 4 Cir. 9/27/06), (citing State v. Everidge, 1996-2665, p. 7 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Evelyn Clanton La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State v. Randolph 219 So. 3d 425 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 4 Cir. 9/27/06), -53 .
State v. Lambert 186 So. 3d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 9/27/06), , : The correct inquiry is whether the reviewing court, assuming that the damag *737 ing potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, is nonetheless convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....
State v. White 174 So. 3d 177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 9/27/06), , confrontation errors, including Crawford violations, are subject to a Chapman harmless error analysis.
State v. Farrier 162 So. 3d 1233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Diggins 126 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hamdalla 126 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hernandez 93 So. 3d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State ex rel. L.R. 52 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 Cir. 9/27/06), , has held that: The proper standard of review is as follows: The correct inquiry is whether the reviewing court, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully | n realized, is nonetheless convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....
State v. Gulley 963 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
App. 4th Cir.09/27/06), .