127 So. 3d 1070 - State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Estelle v. McGuire · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Yates v. Evatt · In re Reidt
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is well established jurisprudence in Louisiana that inadmissible other-crimes evidence is subject to a harmless error analysis. In State v. Peloquin , 04-667, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/17/04), 888 So.2d 393 , 397, writ denied , 04-3170 (La. 4/8/05), 898 So.2d 1280 , this court discussed harmless error in the context of inadmissible other-crimes evidence, as follows: In State v. Johnson , 94-1379 (La. 11/27/95), 664 So.2d 94 , the trial court erroneously admitted other crimes evidence introduced by the State to attack the credibility of the defendant under La.Code Evid. art. 609.1. In Johnson , the supreme court held "that the introduction of inadmissible other crimes evidence results in a trial error subject to harmless error analysis." Id. at 102 . In its ruling, the supreme court set out the following regarding the harmless error analysis: The history of Louisiana's harmless error rule makes clear that there has been one common directive: appellate courts should not reverse convictions for errors unless the accused's substantial rights have been violated. This comports with the general theory that "appeals in criminal cases are not granted merely to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling, but only to rectify injuries caused thereby." State v. Saia , 212 La. 868 , 876, 33 So.2d 665 , 668 (1947), citing State v. Cullens , 168 La. 976 , 123 So. 645 , 648 (1929). This Court adopted the federal test for harmless error announced in Chapman v. California , 386 U.S.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.