Harmless Error Analysis

4,402 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Mattear v. State
  657 So. 2d 46· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-06-28 ·cited 22×
  Appellant Chester Mattear was convicted of sexual battery on a child after the trial court excluded two key defense witnesses for failure to disclose them during discovery. The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that exclusion of exculpatory evidence violates a defendant's Sixth Amendm
• Sears v. State
  656 So. 2d 595· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after being notified of a discovery violation was not harmless error, requiring reversal.
• Broughton Howard v. State
  616 So. 2d 484· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-03-04 ·cited 22×
  Broughton Howard was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on his seven-year-old step-granddaughter. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about a sex education/abuse prevention pro
• Peoples v. State
  612 So. 2d 555· Fla.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the right to trial counsel under the Florida Constitution attaches at the earliest of three points: formal charge, custodial restraint, or first appearance. Because Peoples' right to counsel had attached and been invoked before the State knowin
• Kennedy v. Singletary
  602 So. 2d 1285· Fla.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the issues raised by the petitioner are procedurally barred and, even if not barred, the alleged errors are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Sabatino
  943 F.2d 94· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance, that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that evidentiary rulings were proper or harmless, and that sentencing adjustments for obstruction of justice and leading role were appropriate, but vacated
• United States v. Schaltenbrand
  930 F.2d 1554· 11th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in discussing potential employment with a contractor while working on a government project constituted 'negotiation' under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), but there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted as an 'agent' for the contractor under
• Bland v. State
  563 So. 2d 794· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-21 ·cited 22×
  Larry Bland appeals from denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his trial counsel failed to defend on the basis of voluntary intoxication. The court affirmed, holding that counsel's strategy focusing on consent and lack of initiation of th
• United States v. Drummond
  903 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 22×
  The dissent argues that a trial court's failure to inform a defendant of their right to appeal, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2), should not be subject to harmless error analysis.
• Collins v. Zant
  892 F.2d 1502· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom and Jackson claims must be dismissed under Rule 9(b) as successive petitions, and the district court's denial of relief is affirmed.
• Coleman v. McCORMICK
  874 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence must be reversed due to procedural issues in place at the time of trial regarding capital punishment hearings.
• United States v. Vance
  871 F.2d 572· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court should not have admitted evidence of prior crimes to prove motive, as it constituted inadmissible propensity evidence and was unfairly prejudicial.
• Herrington v. State
  538 So. 2d 850· Fla.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a second-degree murder conviction and held that a trial court must instruct the jury on all lesser degrees of an offense that are supported by evidence, regardless of whether those degrees are alleged in the charging document. The court reversed
• Moore v. United States
  865 F.2d 149· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a conviction under the mail fraud statute requires that the jury find a deprivation of money or property was necessarily envisioned by the scheme, even if the scheme was instructed under an 'intangible rights' theory.
• E.B. v. State
  531 So. 2d 1053· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-10-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in precluding evidence relevant to the defendant's self-defense claim, including the victim's reputation and prior threats, and statements affecting the defendant's state of mind.
• United States v. Slay
  858 F.2d 1310· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court dismissed the defendants' interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's order granting a new trial, finding the instructional error was not harmless.
• United States v. Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez
  857 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 22×
  A district court's failure to inform a defendant of the maximum possible penalty before accepting a guilty plea is reversible error, even if the error is harmless, unless the defendant clearly demonstrates awareness of the maximum penalty on the record at the time of the plea.
• United States v. Pupo
  841 F.2d 1235· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 22×
  A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Martinez-Nava
  838 F.2d 411· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that defendants' convictions were valid, rejecting all their appellate contentions regarding jury selection, supplemental jury instructions, admission of testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Crockett
  813 F.2d 1310· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that Thressa Crews was improperly prohibited from cross-examining her co-defendant, Henry Crockett, violating her Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
• Vito Matarese v. LeFEVRE
  801 F.2d 98· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the original habeas corpus judgment due to an untimely notice of appeal, but it had jurisdiction to review the denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
• Lanzafane Hendrieth v. State
  483 So. 2d 768· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-02-07 ·cited 22×
  Hendrieth appeals his convictions for burglary and petit theft, challenging the admission of a police officer's testimony regarding a witness's prior consistent statement describing suspects seen near the crime scene. The court affirms, finding the erroneous admission harmless gi
• Lataille v. Ponte
  754 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 22×
  The past disciplinary record of a prisoner is inadmissible in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against corrections officers if its sole purpose is to show the prisoner acted in conformity with past violent behavior.
• Crockett Stevens v. Bordenkircher
  746 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding a key witness's bias and the improper admission of a death certificate violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
• United States v. Romano
  736 F.2d 1432· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 22×
  A trial court's order prohibiting a defendant from consulting with their attorney about their testimony during a recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and requires reversal of the conviction.
• Robinson v. Percy
  738 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, and that while subsequent questioning in the interrogation room violated Robinson's Fifth Amendment rights, the admission of those statements was harmless error due to a valid subsequent
• Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc.
  716 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 22×
  The court's original disposition held that the trial court's order was voidable on appeal, and there was sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury.
• United States v. Davis
  714 F.2d 896· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the affiant did not deliberately falsify or recklessly disregard the truth in the warrant affidavit was clearly erroneous, requiring reversal.
• Sulie v. Duckworth
  689 F.2d 128· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's request for an attorney during custodial interrogation does not violate due process when used to prove sanity, as the deterrent effect on the right to remain silent is minimal and outweighed by the state's interest in provin
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Joseph
  685 F.2d 857· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 22×
  The majority holds that the jury's receipt of the defendant's written statement, along with the improper submission of another letter, constitutes reversible error mandating a new trial.
• Smith v. State
  410 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-17 ·cited 22×
  Harvey Smith was convicted of manslaughter for striking Earl Snyder with a pool cue during a bar altercation. The appellate court reversed because the trial court erroneously excluded testimony about the victim's prior specific acts of violence, which was relevant to establishing
• Recinos v. State
  420 So. 2d 95· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-02-02 ·cited 22×
  Francisco Recinos appeals his second-degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in instructing defense counsel not to communicate with Recinos during recesses while he testified. The appellate court affirmed, finding that although the trial court's restrict
• Brown v. Harris
  666 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim regarding jury selection was without merit, and the admission of voice identification testimony did not violate due process, nor was it reversible error.
• Robbins v. Whelan
  653 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant failed to properly state the purpose for which evidence was offered, thus waiving the right to claim error on appeal regarding its exclusion.
• James v. State
  393 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-01-27 ·cited 22×
  James was convicted of assault, a lesser-included offense, after being charged with aggravated assault. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the minimum and maximum penalties for aggravated assault and lesser-included offenses. The court a
• United States v. Rodriguez
  627 F.2d 110· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 22×
  A new trial is not necessary or proper despite a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to testify, as the comment was unintentional and prejudice was vitiated by curative instructions.
• United States v. Bosley
  615 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that admitting extrinsic evidence of a specific act solely to impeach a witness's credibility, after the witness denied the act on cross-examination, was prejudicial error under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b).
• United States v. Bleckner
  601 F.2d 382· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a key government witness, thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
• United States v. Sellers
  566 F.2d 884· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 22×
  A judge must disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, even if the victim is not a party and the judge has no direct financial interest in a party.
• Mancebo v. State
  350 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-09-27 ·cited 22×
  Mario and Jorge Mancebo appealed their convictions for aggravated battery by billiard ball, raising multiple trial errors including improper cross-examination about prior fights, prosecutor's closing arguments about character, admission of mug shots, and admission of the weapon.
• United States v. Meeker
  558 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that repeated, improper, and prejudicial questions by the prosecutor denied the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal of his conviction.
• United States v. Cook
  530 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a co-defendant's statement implicating another defendant, even with a limiting instruction, can violate the Bruton rule if the prejudice outweighs the probative value and is not harmless error. It also held that volunteered statements made by a defendant are a
• United States v. Russo
  527 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the wiretap applications and orders were sufficient because the government did not have probable cause to believe Russo was committing the offense or would use the target phones at the time of the initial wiretap authorization. Even if there were errors, they
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×
• United States v. Valez
  431 F.2d 622· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the record was inadequate to determine if a Wade violation constituted plain error, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the lineup procedure and identification evidence.
• Sweeney v. United States
  408 F.2d 121· 9th Cir.· 1969-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not tainted by errors in the arraignment or the admission of his statements, as any irregularities were either harmless or waived by lack of timely objection and subsequent defense.
• United States v. McCARTHY
  301 F.2d 796· 3d Cir.· 1962-03-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of defense counsel's motion for a Jencks Act statement and the trial judge's erroneous jury charge constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial.
• Albano v. State
  89 So. 2d 342· Fla.· 1956-09-07 ·cited 22×
  Phillip Albano was convicted of violating Florida's lottery laws based on evidence including his silence when accused by accomplices while in custody. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that while the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the limit
• Pullen v. United States
  164 F.2d 756· 5th Cir.· 1947-12-15 ·cited 22×
  The harmless error statute forbids reversal for technical errors in an indictment that do not affect substantial rights of the parties.
• Branch v. State
  236 So. 3d 981· Fla.· 2018-02-15 ·cited 21×
  Eric Scott Branch, a death row inmate with an active execution warrant, appealed a circuit court's denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief and petitioned for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, rejecting Branch's claims that his