Harmless Error Analysis

4,441 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,602 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Lomas
  706 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court should not extend United States v. Allard, 634 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir.1980) to the facts of this case because the government initiated the warrant process before securing the room, distinguishing it from Allard II.
• Bova v. State
  410 So. 2d 1343· Fla.· 1982-02-25 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant has an absolute right to consult with counsel during any trial recess, regardless of duration, though trial courts retain complete discretion over whether to grant recesses and their length. The Court rejected the Fourth Di
• United States v. Parry
  649 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding the appellant's mother's testimony as inadmissible hearsay, as it was offered to prove the appellant's knowledge and as a prior consistent statement.
• Barfield v. State
  402 So. 2d 377· Fla.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  John Barfield was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy for arranging the killing of Forrest Harris in a murder-for-hire scheme. The trial judge imposed the death sentence despite the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed the
• United States v. Goldberg
  582 F.2d 483· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court's findings on Jencks Act and Brady material were not clearly erroneous, affirming most of the conviction, but reversed the conviction on Count 10 for insufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  573 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 58×
• BIG O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  561 F.2d 1365· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 58×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of descriptiveness to the jury, that reverse confusion is actionable under Colorado law, and that the jury's findings on liability and damages were supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. McKINNEY
  429 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellate court can affirm a conviction if the weight of evidence is sufficiently great, even if extrinsic information was improperly brought to the jury's attention, without first remanding for juror interrogation.
• United States v. Teller
  412 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-13 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the use of Kel-set devices and the seizure of evidence were constitutional, and that the defendants' other claims of error lacked merit.
• Grant v. United States
  368 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-15 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that restricting the cross-examination of an accomplice regarding potential promises of leniency was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error.
• Mead v. State
  86 So. 2d 773· Fla.· 1956-04-11 ·cited 58×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  Ralph Mead appealed his grand larceny conviction, claiming trial errors including improper cross-examination regarding military convictions and an incomplete jury charge on the definition of grand larceny. The Florida Supreme Court found the cross-examination questioning improper
• United States v. Doerr
  886 F.2d 944· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 57×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the improper admission of certain coconspirator statements was harmless error, and the admission of grand jury testimony under the catch-all hearsay exception was proper. The court affirmed all convictions.
• Orange Cnty. v. Piper
  523 So. 2d 196· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-04-14 ·cited 57×
  The trial court erred in failing to give Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.5(f) on premises liability and negligence, as the instruction accurately stated the law, facts supported giving it, and it was necessary for the jury to properly resolve all issues. Additionally, Mrs. Pi
• The United States v. Beros
  833 F.2d 455· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a sufficiently precise jury instruction on unanimity regarding the specific acts constituting the offenses, requiring vacation of convictions on those counts.
• Cartwright v. Maynard
  822 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 57×
  Reliance on an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad statutory aggravating circumstance requires vacating the death sentence, especially when the state courts do not reweigh circumstances on appeal.
• United States v. Loya
  807 F.2d 1483· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 57×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and that the procedures for jury instructions, while unusual, did not result in prejudicial error.
• Tucker v. Kemp
  802 F.2d 1293· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper comments during the sentencing phase did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair, as the jury understood its sole responsibility for the sentencing decision.
• United States v. Goodwin
  770 F.2d 631· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for an investigator, that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the judge's comments regarding her decision to testify, and that the denial of a new trial based on newly
• United States v. Dario Dicesare
  765 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the use of a trained canine to sniff the interior of a private residence constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
• Tucker v. Kemp
  762 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 57×
  The majority's conclusion that the prosecutorial argument did not affect the reliability and fairness of the sentencing proceeding is disagreed with.
• Henderson v. State
  463 So. 2d 196· Fla.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 57×
  Robert Dale Henderson was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for killing three hitchhikers in Hernando County, Florida, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding no reversible error despite Henderson's va
• United States v. Brooks
  611 F.2d 614· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 57×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the jury instructions, while potentially incomplete, were sufficient to present the core issues to the jury and that any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence.
• Wright v. Estelle
  572 F.2d 1071· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 57×·via Harmless Error Rule
• O'Rear v. Fruehauf Corp.
  554 F.2d 1304· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-27 ·cited 57×
  The cumulative effect of defense counsel's repeated, deliberate disregard for court orders regarding prejudicial remarks, coupled with the denial of plaintiff's opportunity to respond and inadequate jury instructions, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.
• Campbell v. United States
  176 F.2d 45· D.C. Cir.· 1949-06-06 ·cited 57×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes is error if an appeal from that conviction is pending, but such error is harmless if it did not substantially affect the jury's verdict.
• Aundra Johnson v. State
  53 So. 3d 1003· Fla.· 2010-10-07 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge's erroneous preemptive instruction to a jury that it cannot request to have testimony read back is per se reversible error when properly preserved, because a reviewing court cannot conduct harmless error analysis without pure spec
• Fla. Emergency Physicians-Kang & Assocs., M.D., P.A. v. Parker
  800 So. 2d 631· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-10-12 ·cited 56×
  A medical malpractice wrongful death case where the court held that minor children who are beneficiaries in a wrongful death action are parties subject to compulsory psychological examination under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360. The court affirmed the liability judgment b
• Dean v. State
  690 So. 2d 720· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-04-02 ·cited 56×
  Michael Dean was convicted of cocaine trafficking after police found drugs in his luggage during a consensual search at a train station. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court improperly admitted detectives' testimony about gener
• Taylor v. State
  630 So. 2d 1038· Fla.· 1993-12-16 ·cited 56×
  Steven Richard Taylor appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, burglary of a dwelling, and sexual battery, along with his death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and that the trial court proper
• Lazarowicz v. State
  561 So. 2d 392· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-05-08 ·cited 56×
  Bruce Lazarowicz was convicted of sexual battery of his minor daughter. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erroneously admitted multiple categories of hearsay testimony consisting of the victim's prior consistent
• United States v. Miller
  874 F.2d 1255· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of detailed polygraph examination testimony was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Alexander
  849 F.2d 1293· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for mistrial and in excluding evidence of a post-scheme settlement, as any misconduct or evidentiary issues were harmless.
• United States v. Aldo Mazzone
  782 F.2d 757· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the warrantless searches of vehicles and containers within them were permissible under the Fourth Amendment's exceptions for vehicles and probable cause, and that the prosecutor's improper remarks, while improper, were harmless error given the overwhelming evi
• Walberg v. Israel
  766 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-01 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The dissenting judge believes the petitioner failed to prove denial of effective assistance of counsel, and that state court findings of fact should be presumed correct.
• Collins v. Francis
  728 F.2d 1322· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction on intent, while erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant's intent to kill was not a contested issue. The court also found that the statutory aggravating circumstance was properly applied and th
• Linton v. Perini
  656 F.2d 207· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-24 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel of one's choice is violated when a trial court arbitrarily denies a reasonable request for a continuance, forcing the defendant to proceed with appointed counsel without adequate time for retained counsel to prepare.
• United States v. Valdez
  594 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the false employment letters were material statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and while the materiality issue should have been submitted to the jury, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Frick
  588 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of prejudicial testimony regarding a sexual relationship was harmless error for two defendants but required reversal for a third, and that jury instructions on escrow duties were adequate.
• United States v. Block
  590 F.2d 535· 4th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the mother's consent to search her son's room did not extend to the interior of his locked footlocker, and admission of the heroin found within was prejudicial error.
• United States v. Edwards
  576 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-21 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that a prosecutor's comments on a defendant's silence at arrest and failure to testify, when the evidence is weak, are not harmless error and require reversal.
• United States v. Wilson
  578 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-15 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a partially unintelligible tape recording and its transcript, nor in admitting testimony about an extraneous drug transaction, as any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Rubin
  559 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 56×
  The court held that impeaching defense witnesses by their prior refusal to testify before a grand jury violates evidentiary rules and is not constitutionally permissible for a defendant to claim error. However, the error was deemed harmless in this case.
• United States v. Goldstein
  502 F.2d 526· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-06 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule
• United States v. Pacelli
  491 F.2d 1108· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, finding that alleged evidentiary errors were either harmless or did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Adams
  446 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The admission of hearsay testimony implicating the defendant, even though falling under a recognized hearsay exception, did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the declarant's statement was not crucial or devastating, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Tarvestad v. United States
  418 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1969-12-10 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or Fifth Amendment and Jencks Act issues, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings on the defendants' competency and guilt.
• United States v. Allison
  414 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial court erred in revoking bail and in failing to hold a proper suppression hearing, these errors did not warrant reversal because they did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Alker
  260 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-10 ·cited 56×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of willful tax evasion, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its cross-examination of a character witness.
• Davis v. State
  207 So. 3d 142· Fla.· 2016-11-10 ·cited 55×·via Harmless Error Review
  Leon Davis, Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, and arson arising from a planned robbery at an insurance agency where he set two employees on fire during the commission of the crime. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convi
• Louie Anthony Sellers v. State
  578 So. 2d 339· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-03 ·cited 55×·via Harmless Error Doctrine
  The court held that multiplying points for legal constraint by the number of offenses was an error in calculating the sentencing guidelines scoresheet, and this error was not harmless.