Harmless Error Analysis

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

• United States v. Arambula-Ruiz
  987 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a prior drug conviction for knowledge and intent was proper under Rule 404(b), and co-conspirator statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E); errors in admitting prior arrests were harmless, and no Bruton error occurred.
• Jones v. State
  615 So. 2d 705· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-12-09 ·cited 10×
  Michael Jones appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence, challenging the addition of 160 scoresheet points for victim injury in his life sentence for burglary and sexual battery. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court improperly applied retro
• Blair v. Armontrout
  976 F.2d 1130· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's systematic use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors, coupled with appeals to racial prejudice in closing arguments, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial and entitled him to a new trial.
• Cannon v. U.S. Dep't of Just.
  973 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The United States Parole Commission, not the Bureau of Prisons, must compute release dates for prisoners transferred under the Treaty, taking into account foreign good-time credits and applying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) when the foreign sentence exceeds the guideline range.
• Kennedy v. Singletary
  599 So. 2d 991· Fla.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were procedurally barred and affirmed the trial court's denial of relief.
• Segarra v. State
  596 So. 2d 740· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-03-27 ·cited 10×
  Miguel Angel Segarra was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder in connection with a convenience store robbery. On appeal, Segarra challenged the admission of his March 23 confession, arguing it violated his Fifth Amendment rights after he invoked his right to coun
• Rock v. Zimmerman
  959 F.2d 1237· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an improper jury instruction regarding intent was not harmless error because the jury struggled with the presumption and was repeatedly misinstructed.
• Perez v. State
  595 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a police officer's testimony regarding the victim's prior consistent statements and the introduction of irrelevant magazines constituted reversible error.
• Skelton v. Whitley
  950 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cage v. Louisiana decision announced a "new rule" of constitutional law and therefore could not be applied retroactively to Skelton's case on federal habeas review, as it did not fall within the exceptions to the Teague doctrine.
• Raynold Hayward v. State
  590 So. 2d 976· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-11-29 ·cited 10×
  Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated battery enhanced to a first-degree felony under Florida's weapon enhancement statute. The court affirmed, holding that the enhancement was properly applied where the defendant caused great bodily harm and used a weapon, but caution
• Bierer v. State
  582 So. 2d 1230· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-07-16 ·cited 10×
  Michael Bierer was convicted of lewd assault and battery charges involving three young girls. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's refusal to sever charges related to two stepdaughters from charges involving a neighborhood friend, arguing the offenses were too dissimilar to
• Hunter v. Clark
  934 F.2d 856· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not granting the defendant's request for a no-inference instruction, and that severance was not a constitutionally acceptable alternative.
• Hill v. Black
  932 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's eighth amendment claim was procedurally barred because he failed to show good cause for not raising it at trial and actual prejudice. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a lesser included offense charge under state law.
• United States v. Shenker
  933 F.2d 61· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the insurance broker license application forms as evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt, and that any error in jury instructions was harmless.
• West v. State
  579 So. 2d 288· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-05-07 ·cited 10×
  Sherman West appeals his robbery conviction, claiming the trial court improperly admitted other-crimes evidence. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding that while evidence of the stolen getaway car was inadmissible as irrelevant other-crimes ev
• Deveaugh v. State
  575 So. 2d 1373· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-13 ·cited 10×
  A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of the case, and failure to provide a requested instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force, when supported by evidence, is not harmless error.
• Delgado v. State
  574 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's redacted confession, even if potentially incriminating, constituted harmless error due to jury instructions and overwhelming evidence, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Timothy Wayne Morrow (89-5418/5708)
  923 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions on drug manufacturing and conspiracy charges but vacated the conviction for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense due to an inadequate jury instruction.
• Hamilton J. Whiting v. Maiolini
  921 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity for discovery is improper.
• United States v. Martinez-Perez
  916 F.2d 1020· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that admitting deposition testimony without proving witness unavailability violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and that a district court's upward departure from Sentencing Guidelines requires clear articulation of reasons tied to permissible grounds.
• Hunter v. State OF NEW Mexico
  916 F.2d 595· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 10×
  A constructive amendment of the indictment occurred when the jury instruction allowed conviction for first-degree criminal sexual penetration based on digital penetration prior to the statutory change, which constituted a lesser offense, thus requiring reversal of that conviction
• United States v. Luffred
  911 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's consideration of extrinsic evidence, specifically a chart excluded from evidence, tainted the verdict, entitling the defendant to a new trial.
• Jenkins v. State
  563 So. 2d 791· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-21 ·cited 10×
  John Jenkins appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, arguing that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument—including personal attacks on defense counsel and an extreme 'golden rule' argument where the prosecutor pointed a shotgun at a juror—deprived him
• Carr v. State
  561 So. 2d 617· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-05-03 ·cited 10×
  Kenneth Carr was convicted of manslaughter by culpable negligence and leaving the scene of an accident following a fatal car crash. The appellate court reversed both convictions due to prosecutorial misconduct involving improper comments on Carr's Fifth Amendment right to silence
• Tameshwar Sewak v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  900 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that because the factual record regarding notice of the deportation hearing was undeveloped, the case must be remanded to the immigration court for consideration of the petitioner's motion to reopen.
• Spaziano v. Dugger
  557 So. 2d 1372· Fla.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 10×
  Joseph Robert Spaziano sought a writ of habeas corpus and appealed the denial of his third motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in a death penalty case. The Florida Supreme Court, reviewing the case for the fifth time, affirmed the tria
• Frank C. Peterson (80-A-1720) v. Scully
  896 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a new Supreme Court rule requires federal courts to consider the merits of a habeas petition if the state appellate court's opinion does not clearly and expressly state that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.
• Silver v. Mendel
  894 F.2d 598· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the appeal, that the judicial privilege did not bar claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
• Simmons v. State
  552 So. 2d 268· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-08 ·cited 10×
  Robert Simmons was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine and one count of possession with intent to sell based on a controlled drug buy by a confidential informant. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the sales convictions but reversed the possession convicti
• United States v. Miller
  883 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior drug sale to show identity, modus operandi, or intent, and alternatively, that any error was harmless.
• In re Spillane
  884 F.2d 642· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, finding the award final and the district court had jurisdiction to issue it.
• United States v. Valdez
  880 F.2d 1230· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the appellant's statements, admitting the testimony of Investigator Kozak, instructing the jury on flight, or in its sentencing procedures, and that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of 18
• Lesko v. Owens
  881 F.2d 44· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of gruesome details of a prior murder was unduly prejudicial and violated the defendant's right to a fair trial. Additionally, the court found that a potential plea agreement violation raised serious due process concerns.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• Jacob v. State
  546 So. 2d 113· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the officer's reputation when his character was not at issue, and this error was not harmless.
• Bradley v. State
  546 So. 2d 445· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a clinic record entry stating the victim was 'raped' was inadmissible hearsay and constituted reversible error.
• Avila v. State
  545 So. 2d 450· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's videotaped confession, obtained after he invoked his right to counsel, was reversible error.
• Carlyle Saunders v. State
  547 So. 2d 193· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-06-13 ·cited 10×
  Carlyle Saunders was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum. He appealed on the ground that evidence of a third party's threat to a witness was improperly admitted without proof
• Vincent v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc.
  874 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by admitting a prior inconsistent pleading without exercising its discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 403 to balance probative value against prejudice, and that this error was not harmless. The court also held that the exclusion of the settle
• United States v. Gallo
  859 F.2d 1078· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The inadvertent inclusion of a small portion of a defendant's prior immunized testimony in an application for electronic surveillance, which did not influence the decision to seek or issue the surveillance order, constitutes harmless error and does not require dismissal of the in
• Downing v. State
  536 So. 2d 189· Fla.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified the discoverability of police reports under criminal procedure rules, holding that reports by officers who witnessed the crime are discoverable as statements of those officers, but police reports are not automatically discoverable simply becaus
• United States v. SAA
  859 F.2d 1067· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court erred in precluding alibi testimony and refusing to disclose the informant's identity to one defendant, these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor's argument regarding the uncalled informant was also impro
• Smith v. Zant
  855 F.2d 712· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant did not intelligently waive his Miranda rights due to his mental limitations and the circumstances of the interrogation, and that the admission of his confession was not harmless error as to his conviction for malice murder and armed robbery.
• Olitsky v. Spencer Gifts, Inc.
  842 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of an EEOC conciliation file into evidence was reversible error because it violated section 706(b) of Title VII and was not harmless error.
• Browning v. Foltz
  837 F.2d 276· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 10×
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and even if it did, no violation occurred in this case. Furthermore, the court found no reversible error regarding jury instructions, ineff
• Baker v. State
  517 So. 2d 753· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-30 ·cited 10×
  Ronald Baker appealed his convictions for burglary, robbery, and grand theft, challenging voir dire limitations and cross-examination restrictions. The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the trial judge improperly relied on invalid sentencing dep
• United States v. Art Bernal
  814 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's refusal to give a cautionary instruction on accomplice witness credibility was reversible error because the accomplice's testimony was crucial and largely uncorroborated.
• United States v. DiPAOLO
  804 F.2d 225· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial judge's conduct, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing were not improper or prejudicial to the extent of denying a fair trial.
• United States v. Brooks
  786 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination, allowing prosecutor comments on credibility, questioning the defendant about his silence, or responding to a jury question in the absence of counsel, as any errors were either harmless or proper.
• Corn v. Kemp
  772 F.2d 681· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated its prior decision affirming the denial of relief on burden-shifting jury instructions and remanded for the district court to grant the writ unless the state retries the petitioner.