State v. Burbank

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Lewis

    96 So. 3d 1211 (La. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Id.In State v. Burbank, 01–0831, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 1112, 1121,writ granted in part, judgment rev'd in part,02–1407 (La.4/23/04), 872 So.2d 1049, the Fourth Circuit found that a firearm recovered from the defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant was relevant evidence, and thus admissible at the defendant's trial for first degree murder, although the firearm was not the murder weapon. The court reasoned that the weapon was relevant and admissible because it was introduced as part of all the evidence recovered during the execution of the search warrant at the defendant's residence, the weapon provided evidence that the defendant was familiar with and used guns, and the weapon impeached the testimony of the defendant's mother that she had never seen defendant with a weapon.

  2. Burbank v. Cain

    535 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Finding the same

    The jury convicted Burbank on two counts of murder; he was sentenced to life in prison on each count. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, but the Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded for re-sentencing. See State v. Burbank, 811 So.2d 1112, 1123 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2002). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted Burbank's petition for a writ certiorari and found two Sixth Amendment confrontation clause violations during trial, namely that the trial court erred (1) "by restricting defense cross-examination of the state's principal witness, Cassandra Scott, with regard to whether she had `completed a plea agreement over a year ago to get one year and get out' of jail on her own pending criminal charges;" and (2) "by precluding the defense from presenting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by Scott to Eugene Jarrow that she had falsely accused the defendant of killing the victim."

  3. Cole v. Vannoy

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10876 SECTION "B"(2) (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Such evidence has been found to be admissible in similar cases. See State v. Burbank, 811 So.2d 1112, 1121-1122 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (weapon found in the defendant's home during execution of a search warrant that was determined not to be the murder weapon was admissible), rev'd in part on other grounds, 872 So. 2d 1049 (La. 2004); State v. Lewis, 96 So.3d 1211, 1219-1220 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (gun box recovered during execution of search warrant was relevant and jury was explicitly made aware that the firearm was not the murder weapon so there was little possibility the jury was confused or misled by admission of the evidence). Even if the firearm was not admissible, Cole has not shown that the prosecution's misconduct in exposing the jury to the evidence "so infected the trial with unfairness that it denied the defendant due process."

  4. State v. Quinn

    123 So. 3d 320 (La. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    On remand, this Court found the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and explained the proper inquiry for a harmless error inquiry as follows: State v. Burbank, 01–0831 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 1112. Sixth Amendment confrontation errors are subject to harmless error analysis.

  5. State v. Burbank

    893 So. 2d 109 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY. In our original opinion in this matter, State v. Burbank, 2001-0831 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 1112, we held it was not error for the trial court to restrict defense counsel's cross examination of the state's witness, Cassandra Scott, about the existence and terms of a purported plea agreement between her and the state regarding a drug charge pending against her. However, the Supreme Court reversed, citing State v. Vale, 96-2953 (La. 9/19/97), 699 So.2d 876, and found that "foreclosing cross-examination of Scott on her expectations for her own case . . . unduly `restricted the inquiry into the witness's motive and interest in testifying for the state and thereby frustrated an `important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.'"

  6. State v. Gibson

    867 So. 2d 793 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that double jeopardy has been recognized as a patent error, but addressing it as an assignment of error because the defendant raised it as such, apparently for the first time on appeal

    Therefore, this error is harmless under this Court's ruling in the Collins case. See also, e.g.,State v. Burbank, 2001-0831, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 1112, 1117. Sentencing Error

  7. State v. Williams

    863 So. 2d 652 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    Therefore, this error is harmless under this Court's ruling in the Collins case. See also,e.g., State v. Burbank, 2001-0831, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 1112, 1117; State v. Green, 92-2700, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/15/94), 634 So.2d 503, 506, rev'd on other grounds, 94-0887 (La. 5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272.