Harmless Error Analysis

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

• Brundige v. State
  595 So. 2d 276· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-03-17 ·cited 2×
  Brundige appealed his convictions for armed robbery, possession of a firearm during robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed the armed robbery and felon-in-possession convictions but reversed the firearm-during-robbery conviction due to double
• Perez v. Irwin
  963 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction defining reasonable doubt as a doubt to a moral certainty violates the Due Process Clause and is not harmless error.
• United States v. Bailey
  957 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior similar robbery was harmless error, the California suppression order was not res judicata, and the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• Harrison v. State
  593 So. 2d 600· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred by failing to conduct an adequate Richardson inquiry into a discovery violation, which constitutes per se reversible error.
• Bryant Murphy v. Tivoli Enters.
  953 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while admitting telephone testimony and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for counsel to object to a jury instruction response were errors, they did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Titus Lee Brown, Jr. v. Borg
  951 F.2d 1011· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 2×
  A conviction obtained through the knowing use of false evidence by the prosecution, which is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, violates due process and must be overturned.
• Mendez v. Collins
  947 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-18 ·cited 2×
  A jury instruction regarding parole eligibility, even if discussed by the jury, does not constitute a constitutional violation.
• United States v. Minnick
  949 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's New Jersey convictions qualified him as a felon under federal law, and any error in jury instructions regarding scienter was harmless.
• Calloway v. State
  588 So. 2d 652· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-10-30 ·cited 2×
  Eric Calloway appeals his convictions for sexual battery upon a child and false imprisonment. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about a BOLO (Be On Look Out) and inadmissible portions of a
• Graham v. Hoke
  946 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Cruz rule regarding the admission of codefendant confessions in joint trials should be applied retroactively, but that the admission of the codefendant's confession in this case was harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.
• Hernandez v. Rayl
  944 F.2d 794· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proving intent cannot be considered harmless error when the evidence does not compel a guilty verdict independently of the presumption.
• Fitzgerald v. Thompson
  943 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the conviction or sentencing.
• United States v. Gamble
  943 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial when a magistrate impaneled the jury in a felony case without the defendant's consent, as this constitutes reversible error.
• Porr v. State
  585 So. 2d 944· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 by communicating with the jury without notifying counsel constitutes per se reversible error.
• United States v. Brown
  938 F.2d 1482· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on voir dire, accomplice instructions, cross-examination, exclusion of evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Jenkins
  938 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that confessions obtained after police beatings and death threats were coerced and inadmissible, even if a subsequent confession occurred after a short interval.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• Cohron v. State
  581 So. 2d 947· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-13 ·cited 2×
  Donald Cohron appeals his conviction for escape from a road prison program and his sentencing as a habitual felony offender. The court affirmed his escape conviction but reversed his habitual felony offender designation because all predicate felony convictions occurred on the sam
• Arsis v. State
  581 So. 2d 935· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×
  Robert Arsis was convicted of robbery, aggravated battery, and false imprisonment and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of p
• Brown v. State
  580 So. 2d 327· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-05-30 ·cited 2×
  Craig Brown was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly commented during closing arguments that Brown's six prior felony convictions showed he was prone to violence, which
• United States v. McNATT
  931 F.2d 251· 4th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion to dismiss for ineffective assistance of counsel, in restricting testimony, in refusing to admit evidence, in denying the motion in limine, or in calculating the sentence.
• Peterson v. State
  578 So. 2d 25· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the repeated characterization of the arrest area as a high drug trafficking area by law enforcement officers, over defense objection, constituted prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Gomez-Vigil
  929 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that statements made under penalty of perjury, even if unsworn, are covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and that the prosecutor's remarks, while improper, did not constitute reversible error due to lack of objection and overwhelming evidence.
• Munn v. Trudy E. Algee
  924 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the admission of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence, designed to evoke religious prejudice and chauvinism, constituted egregious error that affected the substantial rights of the plaintiffs. The majority's conclusion that the error was harmless
• Benedit v. State
  575 So. 2d 236· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-02-05 ·cited 2×
  William Benedit was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing an acquaintance over a petty grievance. Although the conviction and sentence must be affirmed due to overwhelming evidence, the court condemned the prosecutor's improper references to the defendant's j
• Fleming v. Collins
  917 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 2×
• Asberry v. State
  568 So. 2d 86· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-10-10 ·cited 2×
  Curtis Lee Asberry was convicted of robbery with a weapon and grand theft based partly on hearsay testimony from a non-testifying witness identifying him as the perpetrator. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of the victim's and officer's
• Reddy v. Coombe
  916 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a non-testifying codefendant's incriminating statements at a joint trial violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements interlock, if they are not substantially the same and consistent on the major elements of the crime.
• Shackleford v. State
  567 So. 2d 30· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-09-21 ·cited 2×
  Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. The court held that because possession with intent to sell is a specific intent crime and evidence showed into
• In re Davidson
  908 F.2d 1249· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 2×
  A criminal contempt judgment is reversible error if the party benefiting from the order is appointed prosecutor, or if the judge acts as prosecutor.
• Rice v. State
  564 So. 2d 597· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of collateral crimes evidence on rebuttal was reversible error because it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
• Copeland v. Dugger
  565 So. 2d 1348· Fla.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentencing error was harmless, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
• Hamblen v. Dugger
  748 F. Supp. 1498· M.D. Fla.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation regarding cruel and unusual punishment during execution or improper resentencing procedures, and thus denied the petition for habeas corpus and stay of execution.
• Vickers v. Arizona
  497 U.S. 1033· U.S.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Hall
  905 F.2d 959· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's statements made to Secret Service agents were admissible because he had spoken with counsel regarding the state escape charges and subsequently waived his Miranda rights for the federal investigation into the threatening letter.
• Smith v. Dugger
  758 F. Supp. 688· N.D. Fla.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's argument that a prior finding of no prejudice under Strickland v. Washington automatically renders a Hitchcock error harmless is incorrect, as the tactical decisions were made under the law as it existed at the time, and the subsequent change in la
• Winford Stokes v. Armontrout
  901 F.2d 1460· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Toushin
  899 F.2d 617· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury that money skimmed from a wholly owned business is not taxable until it is spent for personal use, as taxability hinges on control, not just expenditure.
• Hutchinson v. State
  559 So. 2d 340· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-04-04 ·cited 2×
  Appellant Hutchinson was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping in the death of Kenneth Beaty, who was brutally beaten and killed in a retaliatory attack. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges to the admission of a codefendant's p
• Peters v. Five Star Marine Serv.
  898 F.2d 448· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding expert testimony or accident reports, as the excluded evidence was either unnecessary or cumulative.
• Murphy v. S.W. Puckett
  893 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically failing to raise a valid double jeopardy defense, is not harmless error if it results in prejudice to the defendant, and that the violation was not cured by a subsequent acquittal on a related charge.
• Norris v. State
  554 So. 2d 1219· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-01-05 ·cited 2×
  Appellant's conviction for burglary and sexual battery was affirmed where he failed to preserve his suppression argument at trial and could not demonstrate prejudice from a discovery violation regarding witness testimony.
• Gurican v. State
  552 So. 2d 975· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-11-21 ·cited 2×
  Nancy Gurican appeals her cocaine trafficking conviction, challenging the trial court's denial of her right to final closing argument. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, rejecting the state's request to adopt the federal escape rule despite Gurican's
• Reutter v. Solem
  888 F.2d 578· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose a key witness's pending sentence commutation hearing, which could have been used for impeachment, constituted a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence was material to the outcome of the trial.
• Sigaray v. State
  549 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-10-10 ·cited 2×
  Osvaldo Sigaray was convicted of burglary and grand theft after police found him hiding in a burglarized home with stolen jewelry in his pockets. The trial court erred by allowing the jury to learn about similar pending charges against the defendant during voir dire, but the Flor
• United States v. Scisney
  885 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a prior shoplifting conviction was error but harmless, and affirmed the defendant's conviction.
• Asuncion Santana v. State
  548 So. 2d 293· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's post-arrest silence, when the case hinges on credibility, is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and requires reversal.
• Alton Waye v. Townley
  884 F.2d 762· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inmate's claims were procedurally barred due to failure to object contemporaneously at trial and that the alleged instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Williams v. State
  550 So. 2d 28· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's trial demeanor was improper, it did not require reversal due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Smith v. State
  547 So. 2d 281· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a witness who merely fails to remember or know an answer, without becoming adverse by giving prejudicial testimony, cannot be impeached by their prior deposition testimony.