| Arizona v. Fulminante | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 10, 1990 Decided March 26, 1991 | |
| Full case name | Arizona v. Fulminante |
| Docket no. | 89-839 |
| Citations | 499 U.S. 279 (more) 111 S. Ct. 1246; 113 L. Ed. 2d 302 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 161 Ariz. 237, 778 P.2d 602 |
| Holding | |
| (1) The harmless error rule is applicable to the admission of involuntary confessions. (2) The admission of a confession in this case was not a harmless error. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White (Parts I, II, IV), joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens; Scalia (Parts I, II); Kennedy (Parts I, IV) |
| Majority | Rehnquist (Part II), joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter |
| Concurrence | White (Part III), joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in the judgment) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist (Parts I, III), joined by O'Connor; Scalia (Part III); Kennedy, Souter (Part I) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV, Chapman v. California | |
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession. The ruling was divided into parts, with various justices voting in different ways on different points of law, but ultimately 1) the defendant's confession was ruled involuntary, 2) the harmless error rule had to be applied, and 3) in this case, use of the confession as evidence was not harmless.