Harmless Error Analysis

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

• United States v. Demetrio J. Hernandez and Wayne Parrish
  948 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that Mr. Hernandez's Sixth Amendment claim was not supported by prejudice and Mr. Parrish's Fifth Amendment violation was harmless error.
• United States v. Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad
  948 F.2d 1449· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction despite the failure to issue a physical writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, that the admission of a post-arrest statement was not an abuse of discretion, and that sentencing enhancements for bodily injury, official victim
• Corley v. State
  586 So. 2d 432· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-09-12 ·cited 6×
  Darryl Wayne Corley appeals his conviction for resisting an officer with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding the trial court erred in limiting defense cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding poten
• United States v. Carper
  942 F.2d 1298· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's failure to timely disclose defendant's statements was not reversible error without prejudice, and that while some co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted, the errors were harmless. The court reversed one defendant's conspiracy convi
• United States v. Poindexter
  942 F.2d 354· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by limiting closing arguments regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence and by criticizing defense counsel, denying one defendant a fair trial, but that such errors were harmless as to the other defendant due to strong
• Reed v. Philadelphia
  939 F.2d 128· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a plaintiff's attorney's improper closing argument may warrant strong action, it does not permit defense counsel to introduce inadmissible evidence not in the record, and this error requires reversal.
• United States v. Copley
  938 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that any error in admitting a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Hart v. Stagner
  935 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a habeas court need only examine relevant portions of the state court record for harmless error analysis of a defective jury instruction on aiding and abetting, not the entire record. It also held that extensive pretrial publicity did not violate the defendant
• United States v. Crump
  934 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or admitting prior bad acts testimony, and that the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law.
• United States v. Eugenio Betancourt-Arretuche
  933 F.2d 89· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's request to represent himself was untimely because it was made after the jury had been empaneled and sworn, and thus affirmed the denial of the motion. The court also found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
• Weidner v. Thieret
  932 F.2d 626· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior appellate decision regarding the procedure for gathering evidence on remand constituted the law of the case and was not subject to reconsideration under the new evidence or clearly erroneous exceptions.
• Carr v. State
  578 So. 2d 398· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-16 ·cited 6×
  Alfred Leroy Carr was convicted of cocaine possession after police discovered two plastic baggies in his shirt pocket at a detention center. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Carr's prior cocaine poss
• Meeks v. Dugger
  576 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
• United States v. Valley
  928 F.2d 130· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to introduce co-conspirators' guilty pleas, that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's refusal to testify was harmless error, and that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were
• United States v. Suraphan Tuangmaneeratmun
  925 F.2d 797· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court erred by failing to explain the effect of supervised release, this error was harmless because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The court also held that the district court was not required to explain the application
• A.M. v. State
  574 So. 2d 1185· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-02-12 ·cited 6×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for sexual battery and related offenses against his younger sister and niece. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that hearsay testimony from the victims' mother and treating physician was properly admitted and that any error
• Troup v. State
  574 So. 2d 271· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-08 ·cited 6×
  Habitual felony offender sentencing was improper in three cases due to procedural defects and insufficient prior convictions, but was proper in one case.
• United States v. Throneburg
  921 F.2d 654· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction for felon in possession of ammunition but vacated the sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, remanding for resentencing.
• Glock v. Dugger
  752 F. Supp. 1027· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• Cary Brantley v. State
  570 So. 2d 364· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-11-06 ·cited 6×
  Cary Brantley appeals his second-degree murder conviction and sentence. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any error from defendant's absence during jury instructions to be harmless, but reversed the sentence due to the trial court's erroneous reliance on an unproven prio
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• United States v. MacKey
  915 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that proceeding with a criminal trial in the defendant's absence, when his absence was due to transportation issues and not a knowing and voluntary waiver, constitutes reversible error, especially when the defendant misses jury selection and key witness testimony.
• Pulver v. Brennan
  912 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Parole Commission's failure to provide the petitioner with reasonable access to his files at least thirty days before his parole hearing violated 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b) and was not harmless error.
• Sockwell v. Phelps
  906 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 6×
  A magistrate lacks the authority to try a civil case and enter judgment if the parties withdraw their consent to proceed before the magistrate, and this error is not subject to harmless error analysis.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  906 F.2d 1230· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a key witness's hypnosis was a constitutional error, but the harmless error analysis requires comparing pre-hypnosis statements with trial testimony, not deeming it inherently prejudicial.
• Adams v. State
  559 So. 2d 436· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that testimony regarding statements made by third parties to an arresting officer, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constituted inadmissible hearsay. However, the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of probation.
• Hall v. Ira Kelso
  892 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that the acts of a person of sound mind are the product of their will violates the Due Process Clause by relieving the state of its burden to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Mills
  895 F.2d 897· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while some of the trial court's actions were arbitrary, they did not constitute reversible error and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.
• Harper v. Grammer
  895 F.2d 473· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 6×
  The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the Nebraska Supreme Court's interpretation of the "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was constitutionally sufficient, and that other claims were procedurally barred
• Reynolds Brooks v. State
  555 So. 2d 929· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-16 ·cited 6×
  Reynolds Brooks appeals his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and weapons charges, arguing the trial court erred by failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into his request to discharge his court-appointed counsel. The Florida appellate court reversed and reman
• United States v. Richard Terry Ruuska Appeal of Richard T. Ruuska
  883 F.2d 262· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the impairment of the defendant's right to exercise a peremptory challenge constitutes reversible error per se, requiring a new trial. The court also found sufficient evidence for mail fraud convictions but reversed on the jury selection issue.
• Watts v. Bonneville
  879 F.2d 685· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that imposing two sentences for rape in concert did not violate due process, as the defendant aided and abetted two separate criminal acts. The court also held that a defective jury instruction regarding aiding and abetting was harmless error.
• United States v. Bentley
  875 F.2d 1114· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a laboratory report indicating a positive urine drug test, without further explanation of the testing procedure or opportunity for cross-examination, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses and was not harmless error.
• Leavitt v. Vasquez
  875 F.2d 260· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was erroneous, the jury necessarily found the required intent, making the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Vicks v. Bunnell
  875 F.2d 258· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas petition without obtaining the state court transcripts necessary to review the jury instruction issue.
• O'Callaghan v. State
  542 So. 2d 1324· Fla.· 1989-04-20 ·cited 6×
  John O'Callaghan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion but granted his habeas corpus petition due to a Hitchcock violation in the penalty phase jury instructions, r
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• United States v. Victor Alexander, M.D.
  869 F.2d 808· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance and that any error in excluding defense evidence was harmless.
• United States v. Shapiro
  879 F.2d 468· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government breached its pretrial agreement not to use the defendant's prior conviction for impeachment, and this breach was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Nat'l Cellular
  868 F.2d 315· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appointment of FTC attorneys as special prosecutors for a criminal contempt action arising from an FTC civil suit does not violate the principles of fairness established in Vuitton, especially when the U.S. Attorney's office concurs and the attorneys invol
• United States v. McNEAL
  865 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment's use of 'deposits' instead of 'accounts' for a credit union was not fatal, the evidence of federal insurance was sufficient, the jury instruction linking counts was not plain error, and the refusal of a cautionary eyewitness instruction was not
• Jackson v. Dugger
  529 So. 2d 1081· Fla.· 1988-06-16 ·cited 6×
  Carl Jackson challenges his death sentence under Hitchcock v. Dugger, arguing the trial court erroneously instructed the jury to consider only statutorily enumerated mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court finds the Hitchcock error was harmless beyond a reasonable dou
• Fulton v. State
  523 So. 2d 1197· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting inadmissible evidence of collateral crimes, which prejudiced the appellant and requires a new trial.
• Jones v. State
  522 So. 2d 981· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-03-23 ·cited 6×
  Samuel Jones was convicted of multiple crimes including armed robbery and kidnapping based partly on victim identification evidence involving a distinctive silver-crowned tooth. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecution violat
• United States ex rel. Charles Sanders v. Lane
  835 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's incriminating statement at a joint trial violates the Confrontation Clause unless the error was harmless.
• Quigley v. Vose
  834 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 6×
  A Sandstrom-type defect in jury instructions does not automatically require reversal and must be analyzed under the harmless error standard.
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• United States v. Greene
  834 F.2d 86· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a new trial due to unadmitted exhibits reaching the jury, and that the cross-appeal on sufficiency of evidence was properly before the court and denied.
• Howard v. State
  515 So. 2d 430· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-11-18 ·cited 6×
  Willie Howard was convicted of burglary after the trial court admitted his statements to an armed victim who had recovered stolen property and confronted him at gunpoint. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that Howard's statements were involuntary
• United States v. Batista
  834 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to unrelated crimes investigated before formal proceedings have begun for those crimes. Furthermore, prosecutorial questioning of a witness about another witness's credibility, if improper, does not warrant reversal if isolated