Harmless Error Analysis

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

• Scott v. State
  618 So. 2d 1386· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the waiver for sentencing proceedings via closed-circuit television may have been inadequate, any error was harmless because the defendant was represented by counsel and received the negotiated sentence without prejudice.
• United States v. Valencia
  985 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The government breached the plea agreement by arguing against the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, entitling the defendant to specific performance.
• United States v. Gaudin
  986 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that materiality was established as a matter of law for 18 U.S.C. § 1001 charges, and this error could not be harmless. However, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the equity skimming conviction.
• State v. Anderson
  613 So. 2d 465· Fla.· 1993-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The state has a statutory obligation to make findings regarding habitual felony offender sentencing factors, even if the defendant does not raise pardons or set-asides as an affirmative defense.
• Dawkins v. State
  605 So. 2d 1329· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-10-14 ·cited 8×
  Roy Dawkins appeals his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, arguing that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of an uncharged crime—possession of a firearm by a convicted felon—which violated his right to a fair trial. The appellate court agreed and revers
• United States v. Torres
  977 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent and that the government met its burden of proof for the upward sentencing departure.
• Brown v. Powell
  975 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the Confrontation Clause by limiting cross-examination regarding the potential penalty the accomplice witness avoided, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness bias.
• United States v. McGILL
  964 F.2d 222· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's deposit of funds subject to IRS levy into a personal account, while under criminal investigation for tax evasion, could constitute an affirmative act of evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
• United States v. Adams
  961 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea to misprision of a felony, this error was harmless because the record as a whole contained sufficient evidence of affirmative concealment.
• United States v. Lucas
  963 F.2d 243· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was interrogated by the FBI after requesting counsel, and that this error was not harmless. The court affirmed the denial of the motion for acquittal and the jury instructions.
• Bell v. State
  595 So. 2d 232· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-03 ·cited 8×
  The court vacated the defendant's conviction and sentence, remanding for a new trial because the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his confession, which was obtained after he invoked his right to counsel.
• Montoya v. Collins
  955 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by police interrogation after his arraignment because he did not explicitly assert his right to counsel, and any prosecutorial comment on his silence was harmless error.
• Porter v. State
  593 So. 2d 1158· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-02-12 ·cited 8×
  Jimmy Porter appealed his conviction for sale of cocaine, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the state to reveal the specific nature of his prior convictions during cross-examination. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that while the state may a
• Hightower v. State
  592 So. 2d 689· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-12-10 ·cited 8×
  Edward Hightower appeals his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery, arguing the prosecutor committed fundamental error by improperly attacking the credibility of defense counsel during closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the prosecu
• Alonso Hicks v. State
  590 So. 2d 498· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-12-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the improper introduction of evidence concerning the defendant's right to remain silent and prior criminal history required reversal of the battery on an officer conviction, but not the others.
• Phillips v. State
  589 So. 2d 1360· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-11-04 ·cited 8×
  Charles Richard Phillips appeals his convictions for two counts of sexual battery on a child under 12. The court reverses, holding that the state improperly introduced 'pedophile profile' expert testimony as substantive evidence of guilt, with the prosecutor directly linking the
• United States v. Lacy Stock
  948 F.2d 1299· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in restricting cross-examination regarding a witness's prior omission of a statement, the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
• Jones v. State
  582 So. 2d 110· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-07-02 ·cited 8×
  Tony Jones appeals his conviction for six counts of sexual battery on his minor daughter, arguing that trial judge misconduct and admission of hearsay testimony denied him a fair trial. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that the alleged j
• United States v. Donnie M. Young
  927 F.2d 1060· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction because the district court's failure to comply with Rule 11(c)(1) regarding informing the defendant of the nature of the charges and the sentencing range was not harmless error.
• United States v. Clay
  925 F.2d 299· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the facsimile transmission of a notice of appeal constitutes the functional equivalent of filing, and that the district court erred in failing to resolve controverted facts in the presentence report.
• Steinhorst v. State
  574 So. 2d 1075· Fla.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 8×
  Walter Steinhorst, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion challenging his conviction and sentence for four first-degree murders committed during a marijuana smuggling operation. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the denial, finding no Brad
• United States v. Gaetano Vastola
  915 F.2d 865· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's relinquishment of custody of wiretap tapes for audio enhancement does not require suppression, as the Supreme Court's decision in Rios does not apply to post-unsealing issues. However, the case is remanded to determine if the government can of
• Clark v. Poulton
  914 F.2d 1426· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The referral of a prisoner's suit challenging conditions of confinement to a magistrate was authorized by statute, and any objection to the magistrate's authority was waived by failing to object below.
• United States v. Thompson
  908 F.2d 648· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to voir dire the jury about their exposure to a highly prejudicial newspaper article published during the trial.
• United States v. Miller
  904 F.2d 65· D.C. Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the appellants permission to introduce the witness's grand jury testimony, entitling them to a new trial.
• United States v. Noble Lee Simpson
  901 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentence was improperly enhanced due to procedural non-compliance by the government.
• United States v. Dotson
  895 F.2d 263· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 8×
• Heiney v. Dugger
  558 So. 2d 398· Fla.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 8×
  Robert David Heiney, sentenced to death for murder and robbery, challenges his capital sentence on habeas review. The Florida Supreme Court finds a Hitchcock instructional error regarding mitigation but deems it harmless, while reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing o
• Ralston v. State
  555 So. 2d 443· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding an informant's statements was not harmless error and that an officer's opinion on a defendant's prior drug sales based on demeanor was improper.
• Campaneria v. Reid
  891 F.2d 1014· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's denial of habeas corpus, finding the admission of an unconstitutionally obtained tape recording was not harmless error.
• United States v. Bohn
  890 F.2d 1079· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an in camera hearing to determine the validity of a defendant's Fifth Amendment claim is a critical stage of the prosecution, and denying the defendant's counsel the right to be present violates the Sixth Amendment.
• Coursey v. Broadhurst
  888 F.2d 338· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the plaintiff's prior felony conviction, nor in denying a mistrial or a directed verdict on tractor damages.
• Wood v. State
  552 So. 2d 235· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-10-25 ·cited 8×
  George Wood appeals his cocaine trafficking conviction, arguing the prosecutor improperly commented on his silence at arrest and during trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed, finding reversible error and remanding for a new trial.
• Baird v. State
  553 So. 2d 187· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-10-03 ·cited 8×
  Frederick Baird was convicted of three counts of racketeering following a criminal investigation into gambling operations in Pensacola. The First District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction due to the trial court's erroneous admission of hearsay testimony regarding an office
• Alvin v. State
  548 So. 2d 1112· Fla.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 8×
  Eddie Eugene Alvin appeals his death sentence for the first-degree murder of Willie Grimes during an attempted robbery in Daytona Beach. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Alvin's murder conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing because one of two ag
• Monachelli v. Warden, SCI Graterford & the Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa. & the Dist. Attorney of Bucks Cnty.
  884 F.2d 749· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's out-of-court statements, even with a limiting instruction, violates the other defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gometz
  879 F.2d 256· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a defective zip gun can constitute a 'dangerous weapon' under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and an 'object designed or intended to be used as a weapon' under 18 U.S.C. § 1791, and that the erroneous admission of prior bad acts evidence was harmless.
• Bush v. State
  543 So. 2d 283· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, specifically Section 306(a), requires employers to make contributions to multiemployer plans unless the payment itself is illegal, thereby narrowing the scope of illegality defenses available to employers.
• Felton White v. State
  539 So. 2d 577· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  Felton White challenged his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, arguing the jury instruction failed to require proof of knowledge and control over the gun. The court reversed, holding that the standard instruction was insufficient because it did not adequ
• Evans v. Clarke
  868 F.2d 267· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 8×
  An Anders violation requires the state to reinstate the direct appeal and appoint new counsel to brief arguable issues, as harmless error or Strickland prejudice standards do not apply.
• United States v. Berkery
  865 F.2d 587· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to admit all elements of a crime to receive an entrapment defense jury instruction, when that requirement was later invalidated by the Supreme Court, constitutes reversible error that is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a
• LAM v. State OF Iowa & Iowa State Dep't of Corr.
  860 F.2d 873· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a videotaped deposition of a burglary victim, whose unavailability was not properly established, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Richmann
  860 F.2d 837· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a juror's comment to a witness, if made, was not prejudicial and did not warrant a new trial, and that the defendant's statements were admissible.
• Beltran v. State
  530 So. 2d 1045· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-09-06 ·cited 8×
  Felipe Beltran was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the first-degree murder of Miguel Perez, after charges related to a separate June 9 robbery and attempted murder of the same victim were misjoined with the June 10 murder charge. The court held that the misjoinder wa
• Gardner v. State
  530 So. 2d 404· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred by excluding defense counsel's testimony and limiting cross-examination regarding a photographic identification procedure.
• Clark v. O'Leary
  852 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit cross-examination regarding the alleged bias and motive of witnesses stemming from their gang affiliation violated the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
• United States v. LEE
  846 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that any error in jury instructions regarding economic coercion was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or refusing an entrapment instruction.
• Dickey Gaines v. Thieret
  846 F.2d 402· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a codefendant's statement implicating the defendant, even if not a direct confession, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ruff v. Kincheloe
  843 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 8×
  A district court must review the entire state court record to determine if a constitutional error in jury instructions was harmless, and has a duty to obtain the record if not provided by the parties.
• United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez
  842 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a co-defendant's redacted confession was harmless error, and the recorded conversation was admissible to provide context for defendant's admissions.