Harmless Error Analysis

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

• Espinosa v. State
  626 So. 2d 165· Fla.· 1993-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed Henry Espinosa's death sentence after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded on grounds that Florida's "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" jury instruction was unconstitutionally vague without proper narrowing language. The court f
• Davis v. State
  620 So. 2d 152· Fla.· 1993-04-08 ·cited 14×
  On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Davis's death sentence despite a constitutional defect in the jury instruction regarding the "heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating factor. The Court held that the instruction's vagueness was procedurall
• Seifert v. State
  616 So. 2d 1044· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-03-17 ·cited 14×
  Harry Seifert appeals his conviction for capital sexual battery and lewd assault upon a minor, challenging the admission of hearsay statements from the child victim under Florida's statutory exception. The court affirms, finding that any errors in the trial court's hearsay reliab
• Orthenell Alfredo Russell v. State
  614 So. 2d 605· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-18 ·cited 14×
  Russell was convicted of selling counterfeit crack cocaine. The appellate court reversed because the trial court improperly admitted Russell's pre-trial letter to the prosecutor offering to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, which violated Florida's plea negotiation
• United States v. Royal
  972 F.2d 643· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of certain evidence, even if erroneous, was harmless error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the defendant's sentence was properly calculated based on drug quantity as a sentencing factor.
• State v. Paille
  601 So. 2d 1321· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-10 ·cited 14×
  The State appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial in a sexual battery case involving a minor victim. The appellate court reverses, holding that evidence of uncharged similar acts was properly admitted under Florida law and was harmless error in any case, and that the t
• Freeman v. Lane
  962 F.2d 1252· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellate counsel's failure to raise a meritorious Fifth Amendment claim on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance, establishing cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default for federal habeas review.
• United States v. Granados
  962 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that defendants could be held responsible for the full amount of cocaine in the conspiracy if foreseeable, and that the mere presence of a firearm at a drug trafficking scene constitutes 'use' for enhancement purposes. The court also remanded for specific findings
• United States v. Diaz
  961 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence was permissible because it highlighted an inconsistency with his trial testimony, and the exclusion of one character witness's testimony was harmless error.
• United States v. Hicks
  947 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 14×
  The Paperwork Reduction Act's public protection provision does not shield a defendant from prosecution for willful failure to file tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203, and the IRS Form 1040 is not a rule requiring publication under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Abbott v. State
  589 So. 2d 943· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-10-11 ·cited 14×
  James Milton Abbott was convicted of aggravated battery and resisting an officer without violence. The appellate court affirmed his conviction for resisting an officer but reversed his aggravated battery conviction due to trial court errors in jury instructions on self-defense an
• Davis v. State
  586 So. 2d 1038· Fla.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 14×
  Mark Davis was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft in the killing of Orville Landis and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Davis's nine appellate challenges including vagueness of aggravating
• United States v. Desmarais
  938 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the conviction and forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in bifurcating the trials, admitting evidence of a prior suspicious package, denying motions for acquittal, or in its jury instructions regarding forfeiture.
• United States v. Sutherland
  929 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admissibility of wiretap evidence in federal prosecutions is governed solely by federal law, and that a variance between the charged conspiracy and the proven conspiracy was harmless error. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in collate
• United States v. Stewart
  917 F.2d 970· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·cited 14×
  A district court retains discretion to impose a concurrent sentence on an offender who commits a crime while serving an unexpired sentence, even if a guideline suggests consecutive sentencing.
• United States v. Novak
  903 F.2d 883· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 14×
  Representation by an attorney whose admission to the bar was obtained through fraud constitutes a per se violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requiring vacation of the conviction.
• Tafero v. State
  561 So. 2d 557· Fla.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 14×
  Jesse Tafero, under a third death warrant, appeals the denial of his third motion for postconviction relief seeking a stay of execution. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial, rejecting claims based on Hitchcock v. Dugger, Caldwell v. Mississippi, and the con
• United States v. King
  897 F.2d 911· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's three prior felony convictions and in refusing a limiting instruction, these errors were harmless because the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and uncontroverted.
• United States v. Esnoel Lopez-Pena
  912 F.2d 1542· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in its application of plain error review and its interpretation of the Supreme Court's holding in Gomez regarding magistrate jury selection.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Fontanez
  878 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court agrees with the judgment because the government did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation of the defendant's confrontation right was harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Joe L. Ashford v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  871 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding the victim's drug use and pending charges, nor in refusing to allow the prosecuting attorney to testify, and that any potential errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Lange v. Young
  869 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Wisconsin's limitation on the attorney-client privilege, allowing a psychiatrist retained by the defense to testify for the prosecution, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that any evidentiary errors were harmless.
• United States v. Mohammad Haleem Khan
  869 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defective restitution order in a plea allocution can be severed from the sentence under a harmless error analysis, allowing the remainder of the conviction and sentence to stand.
• United States v. Rogers
  853 F.2d 249· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 14×
• Aundra T. Robinson v. State
  522 So. 2d 869· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×
  Robinson was convicted of burglary and sexual battery based primarily on fingerprint evidence and testimony about a similar crime (the D.K. incident). The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court improperly admitted the similar-fact evidence under the Williams Rule
• United States v. Garcia
  836 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a defendant's bare assertion of no members of his racial group on the venire panel does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination without proof of disproportionate impact or opportunity for discrimination. It also held that admitting a co-defendant's
• United States v. Kurka
  818 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the statute should be read disjunctively, creating two separate prohibited acts with different mens rea requirements.
• Merlo v. Bolden
  801 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×
  A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
• United States v. Adalberto Cervantes-Pacheco
  800 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 14×
  A contingent fee arrangement with a government informant, where payment is dependent on the informant's performance, including the quality of their testimony, violates due process and renders the testimony untrustworthy.
• Mudd v. United States
  798 F.2d 1509· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 14×
  An order restricting a criminal defendant's ability to consult with counsel about their testimony during a substantial trial recess violates the Sixth Amendment, and such a violation requires automatic reversal without a showing of prejudice.
• United States v. Quinton M. Gornto, III
  792 F.2d 1028· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony barred by collateral estoppel was not harmless error, requiring reversal. However, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the retrial on conspiracy counts.
• United States v. Reed
  790 F.2d 208· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not reversible due to the use of a thirteen-person jury, as the waiver was not prejudicial and any error in not recording the defendant's personal assent was harmless.
• Burger v. Kemp
  785 F.2d 890· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent was constitutionally infirm, the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly proved intent and the defendant did not affirmatively raise intent as an issue.
• State v. Ernie Ray Holley
  480 So. 2d 94· Fla.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 14×
  The majority opinion held that an erroneous jury instruction on excessive force affected only the resisting arrest conviction, while the dissenting opinion argued it affected all convictions.
• Smith v. State
  476 So. 2d 748· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-10-08 ·cited 14×
  Florida appellate court reversed defendant's conviction due to trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry regarding the State's discovery violations, holding such failure is per se reversible error even if harmless, and certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Fuson v. A.R. Jago
  773 F.2d 55· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a deceased codefendant's custodial confession, which incriminated the petitioner, violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statement did not fall under a valid hearsay exception and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Jones
  766 F.2d 994· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the swearing of an investigative agent as an 'agent of the grand jury' did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or warrant dismissal of the indictment, and that the jury instructions regarding the Enmons defense were proper when viewed in their entirety.
• Thomas v. Kemp
  766 F.2d 452· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instruction on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was actively contested at trial.
• Gorham v. Franzen
  760 F.2d 786· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-23 ·cited 14×
  The majority erred in rejecting the trial judge's findings on waiver, which were not clearly erroneous.
• Redding v. Benson
  739 F.2d 1360· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that value was a material element of attempted theft by deception was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ruel HUX, Jr. v. A.I. Murphy
  733 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof, and therefore, no Sandstrom error occurred.
• Priestly v. State
  450 So. 2d 289· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02 ·cited 14×
  Darrell Priestly Sr. and Jr. appealed convictions for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. The court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments regarding admission of a tape recording, failure to introduce physical marijuana evidence, lack of proo
• United States v. Creamer
  721 F.2d 342· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the date of the offense were proper, the admission of a previously undisclosed government witness was not an abuse of discretion, and a mistrial was not warranted due to a witness's improper testimony that was cured by a caution
• Barnett v. State
  444 So. 2d 967· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a criminal discovery deposition, taken without compliance with procedural rules, cannot be admitted as substantive evidence, even if the witness is unavailable.
• Rose v. Engle
  722 F.2d 1277· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the admission of the defendant's statements constituted harmless error, even if obtained unconstitutionally.
• Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright
  666 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the use of a deposition at trial, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• Lewis v. State
  399 So. 2d 473· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-06-03 ·cited 14×
  Richard Lewis was convicted of simple assault, a lesser-included offense of the aggravated assault he was charged with, after the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the penalties for the offense charged. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed its initial decision t
• United States v. Ylda
  643 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's silence, though a constitutional violation, was harmless error because it was an isolated incident, not emphasized, and there was substantial evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Rush
  666 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argued that the conviction should be reversed due to the trial court's failure to inform the jury about a significant dispute regarding the accuracy of testimony read to them.