Gustine v. New Orleans Oil Manufacturing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plain error not objected to at trial does not compel reversal without a further determination that the error materially prejudiced the accused’s substantial rights
• holding that plain error review entails consideration of: (1) whether there was error; (2) whether the error was plain or obvious; and (3) whether the error materially prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused
• explaining that Supreme Court in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), found admission of an involuntary confession harmless where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
• explaining that Supreme Court in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), found admission of an involuntary confession harmless where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
• finding that based on Article 66(c)’s broad mandate, a Court of Criminal Appeals must review errors not raised at trial but asserted on appeal and determine their impact, if any, on an appellant’s substantial rights
• requiring identification of a clear or obvious error that materially prejudiced substantial rights of the accused

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).