JOHN W. CANCLER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
ROSS MAGGIO, ACTING WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the admission of evidence regarding an extraneous similar offense, even if improper, did not violate fundamental fairness and constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
Petitioner was convicted of burglary in Louisiana state court and sentenced as a third offender. Prior appeals remanded the case for examination of th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We review on appeal the trial court’s denial of a petition for habeas corpus brought by a Louisiana prisoner in the respondent’s custody.
Petitioner was convicted of burglary in a Louisiana state court jury trial, and sentenced as a third offender to eighteen years confinement. The conviction was affirmed. State v. Cancler, 252 La. 380, 211 So. 2d 298 (1968).
On two prior appeals1 we remanded this case to the district court for the production and examination of the state trial transcript to determine whether due process was violated by the state’s introduction of evidence regarding an extraneous similar offense, occurring six months earlier, for the limited purpose of showing “intent, system, and knowledge”.
A review of the entire state record, including the trial transcript, persuades us that even if the evidence of the extraneous offense was improperly admitted, concepts of fundamental fairness were not violated, and that the admission of such evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Hills v. Henderson, 529 F. 2d 397 (5th Cir. 1976).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
. As to the first appeal, see Cancler v. Henderson, 460 F. 2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1972).
As to the second appeal, No. 73-2191, the case was remanded by an unreported order, January 28, 1974.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Hills v. Henderson, 529 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Welch v. Prickett, 460 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Cancler v. Henderson, 460 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1972)