Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Murphy, 542 So. 2d 1373.

27 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Francisco Jesus Vasquez-Ramirez La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
The violation of defendant's right to confrontation may be harmless error, and is to be analyzed by assuming that the damaging potential of “face-to-face” confrontation was fully realized, then asking whether the reviewing court may conclude that the error was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State of Louisiana v. Kevin D. Bolden La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); [State v.] Murphy, [(La.1989)].” Id.
State v. Bolden 103 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); [State v.] Murphy, [ (La.1989) ].” Id.
State v. Summers 52 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1 Cir.1987), rev’d on other grounds, (holding, among other things, that the testimony of a child, who was four years old at the time of the incident, that a defendant put his index finger in her vagina, apparently through her clothing, on numerous occasions, was sufficient to establish that the defendant committed a lewd or lascivious act upon t
State v. Goldston 804 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
The violation of defendant's right to confrontation may be harmless error, and is to be analyzed by assuming that the damaging potential of the trial court's refusal to allow a "face-to-face" confrontation was fully realized, then asking whether the reviewing court may conclude that the error was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Welch 760 So. 2d 317 La. 2000
[5] The violation of defendant's right to confrontation may be harmless error, *322 and is to be analyzed by assuming that the damaging potential of "face-to-face" confrontation was fully realized, then asking whether the reviewing court may conclude that the error was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Stec 749 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
1st Cir.1987), reversed on other grounds
State v. Welch 744 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), defendant maintains his conviction must be reversed.
State v. Ste. Marie 741 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1 Cir.1987), rev’d on other grounds
State v. Brockel 733 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Jackson 724 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
[7] The Galliano decision involved a per curiam decision on a [which also involved a per curiam decision on a writ application] (La.
State v. Abbott 697 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Wright 690 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The Court in Coy , held that denial of face-to-face confrontation is subject to a harmless error analysis.
State v. Johnese 674 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
( , 1375 n. 4 (La.1989); ).
State v. Galliano 655 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
art. 916(1) and (5); , 1375 n. 4 (La.1989); and State v. Thorne, 514 So.2d *540 1170 (La.1987).
State v. Galliano 648 So. 2d 911 La. 1995
art. 916(1) and (5); n. 4 (La.1989)
State v. Galliano 648 So. 2d 911 La. 1995
art. 916(1) and (5); n. 4 (La.1989)
State v. Galliano 648 So. 2d 911 La. 1995
art. 916(1) and (5); n. 4 (La.1989)
State v. Riley 637 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Riley 623 So. 2d 1289 La. 1993
State v. Martin 595 So. 2d 592 La. 1992
State v. Holmes 590 So. 2d 834 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
1st Cir.1987), reversed on other grounds (La.App.
State v. Sam 586 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
at 1375 (n. 4) (La.1989).
State v. Hunter 563 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
4 Cir. 1989), n. 4 (La.1989).
State v. Batiste 561 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Jones 553 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Shelton 545 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989