Harmless Error Analysis

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

• United States v. Parshall
  757 F.2d 211· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's lower tax liability and the uncertainty of tax law concerning assignment of income was an abuse of discretion, these errors were harmless. The court also held that the jury instruction and the statute w
• Diehl v. State
  461 So. 2d 157· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-12-03 ·cited 10×
  Robert Diehl was convicted of marijuana possession after police seized 32 pounds of cannabis from his property following an aerial search and ground investigation. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the seizure of marijuana from his mobile home was il
• Fulton v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  744 F.2d 1026· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that although jury instructions on alibi defenses were constitutionally infirm by shifting the burden of proof, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases, and did not render the trials fundamentally unfair.
• Curtis v. State
  455 So. 2d 1090· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-09-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's response to the jury's questions, even if ex parte, was not reversible error because it did not violate Rule 3.410 and no prejudice was shown.
• United States v. Cudell Watkins
  741 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive and likely tainted the in-court identification, the error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Bruno v. Rushen
  721 F.2d 1193· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments implying guilt from the defendant's exercise of his right to counsel constituted constitutional error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Ruff
  717 F.2d 855· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the admission of the co-defendant's unredacted statements was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• Healy v. Maggio
  706 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and insufficient evidence does not warrant habeas relief.
• Pratt v. State
  429 So. 2d 366· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-03-15 ·cited 10×
  Ricky Lee Pratt was convicted by jury of introducing contraband (cannabis) into a correctional institution. On appeal, Pratt challenged the jury instructions for omitting an element regarding knowledge of possession, but the appellate court held the omission constituted harmless
• LaCHAPPELLE v. Moran
  699 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's in camera conference with a minor witness, while unusual, did not violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Russo v. State
  418 So. 2d 483· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-09-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination and exclusion of impeachment testimony was harmful error requiring reversal.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. George
  680 F.2d 13· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 10×
  A trial commences for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 purposes when jury selection begins, not when the jury or first witness is sworn, thus a defendant voluntarily absent after jury selection has commenced waives their right to be present.
• Olson v. Green
  668 F.2d 421· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The admission of the accomplice's custodial statements was harmless error because the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the statements was insignificant.
• COX v. State
  407 So. 2d 633· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-08 ·cited 10×
  Cox appeals a denial of his Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial attorney's failure to object to prosecution testimony about his post-arrest silence. The court affirms the denial, holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing
• Alvaro Palacio v. State
  402 So. 2d 500· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-08-11 ·cited 10×
  Palacio was convicted of improper exhibition of a firearm (a misdemeanor) and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in commission of felonies, but acquitted of the underlying felonies. The court reversed the firearm possession conviction because Florida law requires a co
• The United States v. Rothbart
  653 F.2d 462· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a deposition taken in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was not harmless error.
• Bibbs v. JIM Lynch Cadillac, Inc.
  653 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that parties in a suit combining Title VII and § 1981 claims have a right to a jury trial on the legal claims stated under § 1981.
• Grochulski v. Henderson
  637 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to order the prosecutor to grant immunity to defense witnesses, nor in excluding an out-of-court statement offered by the defense, as these rulings did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
• Ivory R. Brinson v. State
  382 So. 2d 322· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a statement against penal interest made by an unavailable declarant is admissible under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Lopez
  584 F.2d 1175· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation comments did not constitute plain error and that the admission of certain out-of-court declarations was not plain error. The jury instructions regarding the defendant's failure to testify were adequate.
• United States v. Cardarella
  570 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings or instructions, and affirmed the jury convictions.
• Annunziato v. Manson
  566 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the state's failure to disclose a key witness's leniency agreement, which led to false testimony, violated the defendant's constitutional rights and warranted a new trial.
• United States v. MacKedon
  562 F.2d 103· 1st Cir.· 1977-09-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement, even if improperly instructed to the jury, did not affect the appellant's substantial rights given the overwhelming independent evidence.
• Reid v. Riddle
  550 F.2d 1003· 4th Cir.· 1977-03-10 ·cited 10×
  The use of a defendant's post-arrest silence to impeach their testimony violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is not harmless error if the case turned on credibility.
• United States v. DI Giovanni
  544 F.2d 642· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, and that the admission of testimony and evidence was not erroneous, leading to the affirmation of the convictions.
• Randolph v. State
  336 So. 2d 673· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's communication with the jury through a bailiff, rather than in open court, was an improper procedure that violated the defendant's rights.
• Hamilton v. State
  303 So. 2d 656· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-11-06 ·cited 10×
  Hamilton was convicted of forging a credit card charge slip based on in-court witness identification. The court reversed because the trial court failed to suppress the identification testimony despite admittedly impermissibly suggestive police procedures during photographic ident
• United States v. Bishop
  492 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the inadvertent delivery of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury did not constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the exhibit was not inflammatory.
• Cribbs v. State
  297 So. 2d 335· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-02-08 ·cited 10×
  When a lineup is found impermissibly suggestive, the in-court identification is presumed tainted unless the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that it rests on an independent basis; the trial court erred by suppressing only the lineup while allowing the in-court identi
• United States v. Jordan
  466 F.2d 99· 4th Cir.· 1972-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance to investigate witnesses and for disclosure of government witnesses' names, nor in denying a motion to suppress the victim's identification.
• United States v. Goodwin
  455 F.2d 710· 10th Cir.· 1972-02-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the intent required for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 473, but affirmed the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Olsen
  453 F.2d 612· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that joint representation of co-defendants by a single attorney can deny effective assistance of counsel, requiring reversal for one defendant. The convictions of the other defendants were affirmed.
• Ervin Simmons v. United States
  440 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a defendant's right to confrontation is not violated when a co-defendant's prior statement is admitted after the co-defendant has pled guilty and is available for cross-examination.
• United States v. Nabi Ferra
  427 F.2d 1348· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-26 ·cited 10×
• Dillard Elean Henderson v. United States
  419 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of constitutional violations during his trial were without merit and did not warrant vacating his sentence.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Fitzgerald Lovell
  410 F.2d 307· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-28 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge held that the Government's failure to disclose two contradictory statements made by a key witness to the police denied the defendant due process.
• Kish v. State
  192 So. 2d 315· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-11-29 ·cited 10×
  James Kish and Leevy Mears appealed their convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit robbery and assault after a jury verdict found them guilty on both counts. The appellate court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments that the denial of a continuance mo
• DeLOACH v. United States
  307 F.2d 653· D.C. Cir.· 1962-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it was error to admit statements allegedly made by co-defendants in the appellant's presence without identifying the speaker and that such error was not harmless.
• United States v. Harding
  104 F.4th 1291· 11th Cir.· 2024-06-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of drug trafficking found years after the charged conspiracy as intrinsic evidence, and that the failure to provide a limiting instruction for evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) was also an abuse
• Elder v. State
  296 So. 3d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-05-27 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for culpable negligence and remanded for a new trial and probation hearing. The court found that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the presumption of reasonable fear for justifiable use of deadly force and by exclu
• United States v. Renado Smith
  928 F.3d 1215· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-02 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Renado Smith and Richard Delancy for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling and related offenses, holding that the district court did not err in admitting the videotaped deposition testimony of a key witness (Vanessa Armstrong Vixama
• Davis v. State
  268 So. 3d 958· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-04-25 ·cited 9×
  A trial judge does not violate a defendant's due process rights by considering lack of remorse or refusal to accept responsibility when sentencing within the statutory range. Lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility are valid sentencing considerations that speak to a
• Fuller v. State
  257 So. 3d 521· Fla. 5th DCA· 2018-09-28 ·cited 9×
  Bruce Fuller was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm after admittedly shooting Furrukh Alam in self-defense. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Fuller was entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative and
• Enoch D. Hall v. State
  246 So. 3d 210· Fla.· 2018-04-12 ·cited 9×
  Hall appeals the denial of his successive motion to vacate his death sentence under Hurst v. State. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the postconviction court's denial, holding that any Hurst error regarding a struck CCP aggravator was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because H
• Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez
  219 So. 3d 1028· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-06-21 ·cited 9×
  Ring Power Corporation and related defendants appealed a negligence judgment arising from a motor vehicle accident, challenging the trial court's exclusion of an admission statement made by plaintiff Condado-Perez to a paramedic at the accident scene. The appellate court agreed t
• Mora v. State
  211 So. 3d 308· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-02-15 ·cited 9×
  Jose Mora appeals his second-degree murder conviction on grounds that the prosecutor made improper personal attacks on defense counsel during closing argument. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction despite finding the prosecutor's comments improper, holding the erro
• McCloud v. State
  209 So. 3d 534· Fla.· 2017-01-19 ·cited 9×
  Stanley McCloud was convicted of second-degree murder after his wife was shot, but the jury received a fundamentally erroneous instruction on manslaughter by act. The Florida Supreme Court approved the Fifth District's affirmance of his conviction, holding that the error was cure
• Corderro Ryan Britten v. State
  181 So. 3d 1215· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-12-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in making the finding required for a dangerous sexual felony offender designation, the error was harmless because the record demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have made the finding.
• Martin v. State
  151 So. 3d 1184· Fla.· 2014-09-24 ·cited 9×
  Arthur James Martin was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting Javon Daniels nineteen times in 2009 and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Martin's conviction and death sentence, rejecting his challenges to the trial court's findings of aggravating circ
• Roundtree v. State
  145 So. 3d 963· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-08-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that admitting an interrogation where an officer repeatedly expressed his personal opinion of the appellant's guilt, without sufficient provocation or context, constituted an abuse of discretion and was not harmless error.