LaVigne v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once defendant establishes that counsel prevented him from testifying and that he would have offered relevant testimony, reversal is required unless State can show that the failure to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• holding that once defendant establishes that counsel prevented him from testifying and that he would have offered relevant testimony, reversal is required unless State can show that the failure to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• holding that “judges should make an on-the-record inquiry after the close of the defendant’s case, although out of the jury’s hearing, into whether a nontestifying defendant understands and voluntarily waives [their] right [to testify]”
• treating claim that counsel usurped defendant’s right to testify as independent constitutional claim although raised as part of claimed ineffective assistance of counsel
• treating claim that counsel usurped defendant's right to testify as independent constitutional claim although raised as part of claimed ineffective assistance of counsel
• establishing trial court's responsibility to inquire whether waiver of right to testify is voluntary, later adopted as Rule 27.1(b)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).