DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Gibson, 391 So. 2d 421.

240 citing documents.

  • State v. Hughes 587 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Veal 583 So. 2d 901 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Caston 583 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Cage 583 So. 2d 1125 La. 1991
  • State v. Laviolette 576 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    this court determined the harmless error rule of Chapman used by the federal courts was `the standard most compatible with this Court's view of its own criminal appellate jurisdiction.'
  • State v. Jenkins 573 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967), focuses on `whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'
  • State Ex Rel. Lawrence v. Smith 571 So. 2d 133 La. 1990
  • State v. West 568 So. 2d 1019 La. 1990
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), focuses on "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction."
  • State v. Revere 572 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Jeansonne 567 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    this court determined the harmless error rule of Chapman used by the federal courts was ‘the standard most compatible with this Court’s view of its own criminal appellate jurisdiction.’ Gibson, supra.
  • State v. Griffin 568 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); (La.
  • State v. Robinson 567 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Romero 574 So. 2d 330 La. 1990
  • State v. Harrison 560 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Walker 558 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Wille 559 So. 2d 1321 La. 1990
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 108 S.Ct.
  • State v. Woolridge 555 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the federal harmless error rule as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Swayze 554 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    3 Cir.1987), the court appraised the issue of harmless error and the harmless review standard as follows: The Supreme Court examined art. 921
  • State v. Smith 554 So. 2d 676 La. 1989
    4th Cir.1986); n. 8 (La.1982) (erroneous denial of admission of evidence); See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Tregre 545 So. 2d 536 La. 1989
  • State v. Brown 549 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” quoting and adopting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Taplette 545 So. 2d 985 La. 1989
    we find that the state did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the introduction of the gun did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction.
  • State v. Murphy 542 So. 2d 1373 La. 1989
  • State v. Martin 543 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. DiLosa 538 So. 2d 1010 La. 1989
    1792, 1798 , 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988) (citing Chapman v. California, supra ); see also
  • State v. Cornelius 539 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    The test for harmless error, adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, states that "the question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the admission or exclusion of certain evidence, depending on the case `might have contributed to the conviction.'"
  • State v. Johnson 541 So. 2d 818 La. 1989
  • State v. Wells 538 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Cade 539 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    the court adopted the standards enunciated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Mullins 537 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    The court stated: "The Supreme Court examined art. 921
  • State v. Parker 530 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Lee 524 So. 2d 1176 La. 1988
  • State v. DiLosa 529 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Eaton 524 So. 2d 1194 La. 1988
    we adopted the test enunciated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Walters 523 So. 2d 811 La. 1988
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Smith 520 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Sheehan 515 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Bailey 514 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    was adopted from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Walters 514 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Williams 514 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Rovaris, supra.
  • State v. Cotton 511 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)
  • State v. Jefferson 511 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • State v. Narcisse 512 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    art. 921 provides: “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.” The Supreme Court examined art. 921
  • State v. Seward 509 So. 2d 413 La. 1987
    we adopted the federal harmless error standard of appellate review, since the standard is "most compatible with this Court's view of its own criminal appellate jurisdiction."
  • State v. Burns 504 So. 2d 124 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Guillory 502 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the ‘harmless error’ test of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct.
  • State v. Montgomery 499 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 [1967]), there is not a reasonable possibility that Ms. Theriot's complained of testimony might have contributed to defendant's conviction.
  • State v. Neidlinger 498 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Rosales 498 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Dakin 495 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986