State v. Anthony

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Anthony

275 So. 3d 869

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 26, 2019

DocketNo. 2019-K-0476

StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 869 (State v. Anthony) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Anthony, 275 So. 3d 869 (La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. While we presently express no opinion on whether the testimony of the screening prosecutor contained errors, we find that any such defects were not structural in nature and would instead constitute trial errors subject to a harmless error analysis. See Weaver v. Massachusetts , 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 1907, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017) ("[T]he defining feature of a structural error is that it 'affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,' rather than being 'simply an error in the trial process itself.' "); see also State v. Langley , 06-1041, p. 11 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 1160, 1167, cert. denied , 552 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 493, 169 L.Ed.2d 368 (2007) (setting forth the limited classes of recognized structural errors). The ruling below is vacated and the matter remanded to the court of appeal for a determination of whether guilty verdicts actually rendered in this trial were surely unattributable to the alleged errors in Mr. Block's testimony. See Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). If *870necessary, the court of appeal also should address the pretermitted assignments of error. The application is otherwise denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. While we presently express no opinion on whether the testimony of the screening prosecutor contained errors, we find that any such defects were not structural in nature and would instead constitute trial errors subject to a harmless error analysis. See Weaver v. Massachusetts , 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1899, 1907, 198 L.Ed.2d 420 (2017) ("[T]he defining feature of a structural error is that it 'affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,' rather than being 'simply an error in the trial process itself.' "); see also State v. Langley , 06-1041, p. 11 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 1160, 1167, cert. denied , 552 U.S. 1007, 128 S.Ct. 493, 169 L.Ed.2d 368 (2007) (setting forth the limited classes of recognized structural errors). The ruling below is vacated and the matter remanded to the court of appeal for a determination of whether guilty verdicts actually rendered in this trial were surely unattributable to the alleged errors in Mr. Block's testimony. See Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993). If *870necessary, the court of appeal also should address the pretermitted assignments of error. The application is otherwise denied.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 3d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anthony-la-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack