Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard

215 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Green
  436 F.2d 290· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the precinct identification procedure was potentially suggestive, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the extensive independent evidence and the victim's clear observation during the crime.
• United States v. Blassick
  422 F.2d 652· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, while improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defense counsel's prior remarks and the court's curative instructions. The court also held that a warrantless search of a locker was permissible under
• Chin KEE v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  407 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1969-02-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while arraignment in Massachusetts may have been a critical stage, the absence of counsel did not cause prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt, thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Martinez v. Ylst
  951 F.2d 1153· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the state waived its right to argue that the trial court's error was not cognizable on federal habeas corpus, and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hinman v. McCARTHY
  676 F.2d 343· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the use of federal magistrates to conduct evidentiary hearings and make recommendations in habeas corpus proceedings is constitutional, and that the admission of Hinman's statement, obtained in violation of Miranda, was not harmless error beyond a reasonable d
• Daughtry v. State
  804 So. 2d 426· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-10-17 ·cited 12×
  Phillip Daughtry was convicted of aggravated battery, burglary, and resisting without violence after forcing entry into his former girlfriend's apartment and assaulting her. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that although the trial court erred in instructing t
• Deck v. State
  653 So. 2d 435· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-03-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of an investigative interview after the suspect's equivocal invocation of his right to remain silent violated the Florida Constitution, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Rosalba Solivan
  937 F.2d 1146· 6th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument, which appealed to the jury's emotions and prejudices regarding the drug problem, constituted reversible error because they deprived the defendant of a fair trial and were not cured by the subsequent admonition.
• United States v. Ira T. Smith
  692 F.2d 658· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that aggregating the value of stolen goods to meet the $5000 jurisdictional amount is permissible, and the trial court's refusal to give a specific jury instruction regarding addict informant testimony was not prejudicial error in this case.
• Franklin v. State
  403 So. 2d 975· Fla.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 12×
  Franklin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the shooting death of a liquor store owner. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the underlying felony (robbery) in a felony-murd
• United States v. Denver Lane Moore
  419 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of continuances did not prejudice the defendant and the jury instruction on consent to search was proper.
• United States v. Johns
  625 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that any error in failing to address the appellant personally regarding her admission of probation violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Stone v. Green
  796 F.2d 1366· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the erroneous introduction of prior conviction evidence, even if resulting from a denial of severance, was constitutionally harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Griffin v. Martin
  785 F.2d 1172· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the result based on prior precedent, finding that contradictory jury instructions on self-defense rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
• McNEIL v. Cuyler
  782 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the majority misapplied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby increasing the burden on petitioners and wrongly changing the outcome of the case.
• Williams v. Engle
  683 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief must be vacated and the case remanded because the record was inadequate to determine if the constitutional error was harmless.
• Phillips v. State OF N.C.
  433 F.2d 659· 4th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 10×
  The Supreme Court's ruling in Coleman v. Alabama, requiring counsel at preliminary hearings, should not be applied retroactively to cases predating the decision.
• Daboul v. Craven
  429 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding the arrest lawful and the admission of prior testimony admissible on most counts, while remanding one count for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Brown v. Dugger
  831 F.2d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination into a witness's potential deal with the state violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Miller v. State
  852 So. 2d 904· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-08-13 ·cited 8×
  Counsel is ineffective for failing to object to a defendant appearing before the jury in visible restraint devices; such appearance is inherently prejudicial and undermines the presumption of innocence, requiring a hearing on necessity before the devices may be used.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  998 F.2d 1426· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the harmless error standard from Chapman v. California applies to this habeas case because the state courts did not have an opportunity to review the constitutional error. The court found the error harmless as to Richley and Holmes, but remanded for further co
• Montoya v. Collins
  955 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by police interrogation after his arraignment because he did not explicitly assert his right to counsel, and any prosecutorial comment on his silence was harmless error.
• Dolinsky v. State
  576 So. 2d 271· Fla.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 8×
  Raymond Dolinsky was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder in a drug transaction robbery that resulted in three deaths. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but vacated his death sentence, finding the trial court improp
• LAM v. State OF Iowa & Iowa State Dep't of Corr.
  860 F.2d 873· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a videotaped deposition of a burglary victim, whose unavailability was not properly established, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Branson
  756 F.2d 752· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the prosecutor's references to the defendant's silence after being read his Miranda rights constituted plain error, violating his Fifth Amendment rights.
• Johnson v. Wyrick
  653 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, affirming the denial of relief.
• United States v. Longee
  603 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of one defendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a co-defendant, when the declarant does not testify, violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes plain error, requiring reversal of the co-defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Brown
  575 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make an explicit finding on the voluntariness of the defendant's statement, considering the issue of intoxication, with unmistakable clarity.
• United States v. Bamberger
  482 F.2d 166· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a free transcript of a co-defendant's trial was harmless error, and the search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause.
• Adkins v. Beto
  462 F.2d 802· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-27 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a potentially illegally seized murder weapon was harmless error, and other claims raised in the habeas petition lacked merit.
• United States v. Fueston
  426 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, an unconstitutional presumption instruction required a new trial.
• United States v. Davis
  418 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Evans v. Britton
  628 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-15 ·cited 7×
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• Collazo v. Estelle
  898 F.2d 87· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible, as it was not the product of police coercion despite initial improper statements.
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• DIX v. Kemp
  804 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jury instruction impermissibly shifting the burden of proof on intent, in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, was not harmless error when the defendant raised an insanity defense, as intent remained a critical issue.
• United States v. Schmitt
  794 F.2d 555· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 6×
  Even if the prosecutor's comments on the appellant's silence violated the Fifth Amendment, such comments were harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The admission of evidence regarding the appellant's tax liability was also proper.
• United States v. Mechanik
  756 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant subject to retrial after a mistrial due to a hung jury has no colorable double jeopardy claim appealable before final judgment, following Richardson v. United States.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Abell Holiday
  482 F.2d 729· D.C. Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if a lineup was uncounseled, in-court identifications can be admissible if they have an independent source, and references to the lineup at trial can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• United States v. Miramon
  470 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if there was an error in admitting evidence obtained from a search, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the identification procedures and assistance of counsel were not improper.
• Howard v. Craven
  446 F.2d 586· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·cited 6×
• United States v. King
  415 F.2d 737· 6th Cir.· 1969-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury panel prejudice claim was harmless error, handwriting exemplars and license plate testimony were admissible, but a more severe sentence imposed after a retrial without stated reasons violates due process.
• Application of Michael Reynolds for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
  397 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment and grant a new trial regarding the appellants' degree of guilt.
• Sizemore v. Fletcher
  921 F.2d 667· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, including appeals to class prejudice and denigration of the right to counsel, constituted prejudicial error violating due process, warranting the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
• Douglas v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  578 F.2d 266· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the introduction of evidence of the defendant's silence after arrest, even if constitutional error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bailey v. Jones
  225 So. 3d 776· Fla.· 2017-07-06 ·cited 4×
  Robert J. Bailey seeks habeas corpus relief from his death sentence under Hurst v. Florida, which requires jury unanimity in recommending capital punishment. The Florida Supreme Court grants the petition, finding that Bailey's 11-1 jury recommendation violates Hurst and the error
• Dola Cullen Boykin v. State
  601 So. 2d 1312· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-07-08 ·cited 4×
  Dola Boykin appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, challenging the admission of hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding information received about a suspect named 'Bill Cosby' in a similar crime. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed