I thought typo the first couple times, but after that figured it was a misremember. If you were going to start looking up state laws, thought it'd help to have the right state.
I probably won't. I suspect this would involve case research, not statutes. And probably a good bit.
Further response & for those interested:
It's easy to find
language that sounds helpful in cases, but that isn't the law; yet that's what people tend to do ("here, this case says this, and obviously that language means X,Y,Z in this situation [only because I say it does]). The law is the line between factual scenarios in which the Court uses the language to find error and the factual scenarios in which it uses the language to say no error. Obviously, you have to compare factual scenarios, and no two cases are alike.
Then there is a second layer: whether or not in those factual scenarios, the court found the error sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversing a conviction. There are any number of cases in which a court says there was error(s), but they didn't hurt enough to justify reversing a conviction.
But there's also
standard of review, which turns on whether or not trial attorney objected sufficiently. Now, this is an even bigger concern for appellate attorneys, but is also one for trial attorneys, because it tells them just how likely their objections/motions are to succeed. Take constitutional error. Harmless error analysis ("Chapman" standard) is when the trial attorney objects, and it's easier to win on appeal (but still very hard to win). Plain error (federally) is when the trial attorney doesn't. States can have their own variations under their own constitutions.
All this and much more goes into weighing just how important a case is to
your specific case. That, in turn, is necessary to have a solid opinion about whether or not a judge ruled correctly at trial...whether or not an appellate court is likely to get overturned by the next higher court...etc.
But this is a political debate forum......
legalinsurrection.com