Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard

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

• McGUIRE v. Estelle
  919 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, with dissenting judges arguing the panel's decision wrongly overturned a state conviction by misapplying federal law and interfering with state court rulings.
• Buddy Nichols v. Mac Sim Butler
  917 F.2d 518· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's fundamental right to testify was violated when his counsel threatened to withdraw if he insisted on testifying.
• United States v. Jones
  909 F.2d 533· D.C. Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions for the Travel Act were erroneous because they did not require proof of intent to violate specific state laws, and the evidence was insufficient to support the Mann Act conviction for 'transportation'.
• St. Luke Gregory, Jr. v. State OF N.C.
  900 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would hold that any error in admitting a hearsay statement was harmless, and would reverse the grant of habeas corpus, finding the jury verdict reliable.
• Swift v. Lynn
  870 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of habeas relief on the sufficiency of the evidence claim was affirmed, but the denial of relief on the multiple offender adjudication claim was reversed and remanded.
• Coury v. Livesay
  868 F.2d 842· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bystander juror selection process and prosecutorial comments did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights, and therefore, the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper.
• Gunn v. Lanson Newsome
  851 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 4×
• Escalera v. Coombe
  826 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
• Hammonds v. Lanson Newsome
  816 F.2d 611· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the absence of a transcript from a preliminary hearing does not change the analysis for determining if the denial of counsel at that stage was harmless error.
• Burton v. Foltz
  810 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 4×
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• Brannin v. State
  476 So. 2d 245· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-09-24 ·cited 4×
  Brannin appeals his convictions for two counts of first degree murder, armed burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery, challenging the trial court's denial of his mistrial motion after a witness commented on his right to remain silent and the trial court's method of retaining jur
• Boone v. Marshall
  760 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(D)(2)(e) does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and any such violation would be harmless error given overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Suzan Joseph Daoud
  741 F.2d 478· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in refusing a curative instruction regarding the defendant's request for counsel, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that questioning the defendant about her ability to pay for counsel was permiss
• Goudlock v. Marshall
  712 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Weir v. Fletcher narrowly limited Doyle v. Ohio, vacating prior Sixth Circuit precedent that had granted habeas corpus relief based on an expansive reading of Doyle.
• United States v. Almaguer
  632 F.2d 1265· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's failure to fully inform the defendant of the perjury risk under Rule 11(c)(5) was harmless error because the defendant suffered no prejudice and was not being prosecuted for perjury.
• Ulysses Gibson v. United States
  575 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the improper use of prior uncounseled convictions to impeach a defendant's testimony constitutes harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the jury would have reached the same verdict regardless.
• Martin v. State OF Ind.
  521 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition by deeming the constitutional issue moot, and that a remand is necessary for further factual determination.
• Snyder v. Ira M. Coiner
  510 F.2d 224· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's limitation on cross-examination, even if an abuse of discretion, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the denial of a motion to disqualify a juror was not a due process violation.
• Tafoya v. Eyman
  455 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the accused has no right to counsel during out-of-court photographic identification and that any potentially tainted identifications were harmless error.
• Evans v. Cupp
  415 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding jury unanimity, prosecutorial comment on silence, and search and seizure were either waived, harmless, or not applicable under the relevant constitutional law at the time of trial.
• Am. Towing of Miami, LLC v. Leonel Espinal
  45 Fla. L. Weekly D2073· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-10 ·cited 2×
  American Towing of Miami appealed from an order granting class certification in a case alleging violations of Florida Statute § 715.07(2)(a)(9), which prohibits towing companies from requiring liability releases as a condition of vehicle release. The court reversed the class cert
• Cooper v. State
  68 So. 3d 263· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-12-01 ·cited 2×
  Cooper appeals his convictions for sexual abuse, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony about uncharged sexual incidents. On remand from the Florida Supreme Court to apply the correct harmless error standard, the Second District Court of Appeal affirms the convictio
• Stephens v. Miller
  989 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding a conversation during the alleged incident violated his Sixth Amendment right to testify and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Brennan
  994 F.2d 918· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the trial court's decisions regarding evidence, jury instructions, or procedural matters.
• Lowery v. Collins
  988 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a videotaped interview of a child complainant, without the child testifying in court and being subject to cross-examination, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, and such an error is not harmless when the videotape likely contributed to the convic
• United States v. Hudson
  970 F.2d 948· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court is bound by prior panel precedent (Barrett) despite disagreement with its reasoning regarding impeachment evidence foundation.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• Sherley v. Seabold
  929 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the prosecution failed to demonstrate the witness's unavailability with a good-faith effort and the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliabilit
• Smart v. Leeke
  856 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant in a South Carolina murder trial violated due process because self-defense is an element of murder in South Carolina, which the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The People of the Territory of Guam v. Cepeda
  851 F.2d 1564· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the improper admission of nonexpert handwriting testimony was not harmless error and required reversal of the conviction.
• Gilmore v. Henderson
  825 F.2d 663· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of defense witnesses' testimony, which impeded the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Busby v. Holt
  771 F.2d 1461· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's misconduct in calling a witness who intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and the trial court's error in permitting this, constituted a constitutional violation that was not harmless error.
• United States v. Spaulding
  588 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of the habeas petition was proper due to a valid speedy trial waiver, and that the denial of funds for defense experts and the admission of evidence regarding a gun were harmless errors.
• United States v. Lewis
  448 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the conviction for theft from the United States mail should be affirmed due to overwhelming admissible evidence, despite some close rulings.
• United States v. Bethea
  446 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that evidence seized was admissible.
• Cain v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  442 F.2d 356· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's actions, including calling a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment and commenting on that invocation in closing arguments, denied the petitioner a fair trial.
• Lindsey v. Craven
  427 F.2d 153· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies because the specific procedural issue regarding Jackson v. Denno was not raised in prior state court proceedings.
• Mundy v. Henderson
  416 F.2d 432· 6th Cir.· 1969-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state trial court's refusal to allow defense counsel to inspect notes used by a witness to refresh his memory, while error, did not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation requiring habeas corpus relief.
• Wakilii Brown v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  11th Cir.· 2026-08-21
  The admission of Brown's statement to his aunt that he "hurt" the victims did not violate his federal due-process right because the statement was not a crucial, critical, and highly significant part of the trial record—it occupied less than one percent of the evidence, was used o
• Bull v. State
  245 So. 3d 699· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-04-27
  A trial court's instruction that was irrelevant to any fact in issue constitutes reversible error when it effectively negates the defendant's self-defense claim, particularly when combined with prosecutorial arguments stating the defendant had no right to self-defense, and cannot
• Taylor v. Jones
  228 So. 3d 71· Fla.· 2017-10-12
  John Calvin Taylor II petitioned for habeas corpus relief under Hurst v. Florida, challenging his death sentence imposed by a non-unanimous jury recommendation (10-2). The Florida Supreme Court held that Hurst applies retroactively to Taylor's final 2004 sentence and that the non
• Strawder v. State
  929 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-05-04
  Brian Strawder appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and robbery, challenging the admission of evidence regarding a prior vague threat he made against an undefined group of people. Although the appellate court agreed the trial court erred in admitting this evidence, it
• Nethery v. Collins
  993 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The court held that the jury instructions prevented adequate consideration of mitigating evidence of voluntary intoxication, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• Akrawi v. Jabe
  979 F.2d 418· 6th Cir.· 1992-11-09
  The court held that the trial court's error in barring a witness for violating a sequestration order was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the petitioner's other claims of constitutional error and ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit.
• Rouleau v. Meachum
  974 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-27
  The court held that any error in the jury instruction concerning duress was harmless with respect to the robbery conspiracy charge, and therefore reversed the grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
• Byrnes v. Vose
  969 F.2d 1306· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-17
  The court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the futility exception did not apply, affirming the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition.
• Matire v. State
  534 So. 2d 1168· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-08-31
  Prosecutor's comments on defendant's post-arrest silence constitute harmful error requiring a new trial when the permissible evidence is not conclusive and there is a reasonable possibility the improper comments influenced the verdict.
• Christopher v. State
  824 F.2d 836· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-23
  The court held that the admission of Christopher's confession was not harmless error because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as police failed to scrupulously honor his repeated requests to cease questioning.
• United States v. Cook
  794 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-20
  The court held that the disclosure of grand jury transcripts to deputized state officers was permissible under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), probable cause existed for the search warrant despite potentially tainted information, prosecutor's comments on one defendant's silence did not viol