87-K-2753 Precedential Processed

State v. Walters

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed April 7, 1988 · 523 So. 2d 811

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Donivyn Scott Cormier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Kyvonte Latrell Eaglin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State v. Eaglin 239 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Shaw 672 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Becnel 668 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Brooks 656 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
State v. Broussard 649 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Dixon 631 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
State v. Foret 628 So. 2d 1116 La. 1993
State v. Smith 623 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Overton 618 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993

all 28 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Walters 514 So. 2d 257
State v. Green 493 So. 2d 1178
State v. Gibson 391 So. 2d 421

Opinion text

523 So.2d 811 (1988) STATE of Louisiana v. Judith WALTERS a/k/a Judith Stevison. No. 87-K-2753. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 7, 1988. PER CURIAM. Denied. The court of appeal, 514 So.2d 257 , misapplied the test of harmless error but the result is correct. In determining whether the erroneous admission of evidence requires reversal of a defendant's conviction, the reviewing court should not consider the error harmless unless "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [the evidence] contributed to the verdict." The correct standard is whether there is a "reasonable" possibility that the evidence might have contributed to the verdict, and whether the reviewing court is prepared to state beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Green, 493 So.2d 1178 (La.1986); State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980). Under the correct standard, the erroneous introduction of a co-participant's statement which tends to bolster the reliability of a confession the defendant seeks to avoid at trial may be deemed harmless, but only if the reviewing court is prepared to make that finding in spite of the statement's "interlocking" character, not because of it. See, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. ___ , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). Nevertheless, the trial court did not err in admitting the "interlocking" statement of defendant's daughter, an uncharged principal who was otherwise unavailable to the state at trial despite its efforts to secure her presence through the aid of the Mississippi courts and police. It appears that the portions of the statement bearing significantly on defendant's participation in the crimes were so thoroughly substantiated by defendant's own confession *812 that, when the witness became "unavailable," the statement was directly admissible against the defendant as substantive evidence. See, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 , 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986). LEMMON, J., votes to grant the application and docket the matter for argument and decision by full opinion, rather than by a brief per curiam opinion.