Harmless Error Analysis

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

• Hazelwood v. State
  658 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-08-23
  A prosecutor's closing argument impermissibly suggested that uncalled witnesses would corroborate the state's case, warranting reversal.
• Pare v. State
  656 So. 2d 602· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-23
  Bernard Pare was convicted of grand theft for cashing two signed blank checks totaling $1,000 without authorization. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court erred in excluding testimony that could have corroborated Pare'
• Yamura Derrick Hudson v. State
  652 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-06
  The court held that allowing opinion testimony from a deputy sheriff that an informant was honest improperly bolstered the informant's testimony.
• Correia v. State
  654 So. 2d 952· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-04-05
  The court reversed defendant Correia's conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm because the trial court improperly admitted extrinsic evidence to impeach the alibi witness on collateral matters brought out during cross-examination. The appellate court held that while cros
• Perez v. State
  639 So. 2d 200· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-07-19
  Florida affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful firearm possession by a convicted felon, holding that identification was proper, prosecutorial comment did not violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination, and the reasonable doubt instruction was adequate.
• Core v. State
  639 So. 2d 185· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-07-06
  Mark Core appealed his conviction for attempted first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. The court affirmed the conviction but partially reversed and remanded the sentencing, finding error in classifying Core as a habitual violent felony offender on the life felony count a
• Price v. North Carolina
  512 U.S. 1249· U.S.· 1994-06-30
• Fruetel v. State
  638 So. 2d 966· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-05-25
  On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld Patricia Fruetel's conviction for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, rejecting her entrapment defense. The court applied the subjective test for entrapment established in Munoz v. State, finding
• Pugh v. State
  637 So. 2d 313· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-05-24
  Ronnie Pugh was convicted of aggravated battery and robbery with a firearm based largely on witness William Cure's trial testimony that Pugh held a gun and ordered victims to the ground. The court reversed because the trial court erred in excluding Cure's prior inconsistent depos
• Seifert v. State
  636 So. 2d 716· Fla.· 1994-05-12
  Florida Supreme Court held that while the trial court properly admitted child hearsay testimony under section 90.803(23) despite adequate preservation of the objection, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Terron Walker v. State
  632 So. 2d 1113· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-03-07
  Terron Walker appeals his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial court improperly excluded cross-examination evidence regarding the victim's aggressor's reputation for violence. The court affirmed the conviction, finding any evidentiary error harmless because the conf
• SUN v. State
  627 So. 2d 1330· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-15
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a criminal conviction and ordered a new trial because the prosecution failed to disclose a material prior inconsistent statement by the defendant's only defense witness, substantially undermining her case and preventing a fair trial.
• Hernandez v. Dugger
  839 F. Supp. 849· M.D. Fla.· 1993-12-08
  The court granted the state's motion for a stay pending appeal, allowing the petitioner to remain incarcerated, despite the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
• Cameron v. State
  625 So. 2d 1319· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-11-05
  Willie Cameron was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court admitted impermissible hearsay testimony from the investigating officer regarding hospit
• Randolph v. State
  624 So. 2d 328· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-09-03
  Willie James Randolph appealed his jury convictions for false imprisonment with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and sexual battery with a deadly weapon. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in
• United States v. Elwood
  999 F.2d 814· 5th Cir.· 1993-08-23
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions but vacated his sentences and remanded for resentencing because the upward adjustment for a leadership role was not supported by sufficient reliable evidence.
• United States v. Bradshaw
  999 F.2d 798· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-28
  A district court is not required to entertain a collateral challenge to the constitutionality of prior state convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes unless prejudice can be presumed from the alleged violation or the violation is so fundamental that it undermines confidenc
• Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Dixon
  996 F.2d 667· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-23
• United States v. Logan
  998 F.2d 1025· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that defense counsel's contentious exchanges with the judge did not deny a fair trial, the jury instruction on firearm use during a drug offense was adequate, and other claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Contreras-Ceballos
  999 F.2d 432· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court held that the officers' use of a ruse to get the door partially opened, followed by an announcement of authority and purpose, did not violate the knock-and-announce statute, and the defendant was not prejudiced by the venue decision.
• Wright v. Dallman
  999 F.2d 174· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not require a trial court to allow cross-examination on speculative inferences of bias, especially when other evidence supports the conviction and the limitation does not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
• Lowery v. Collins
  996 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-20
  The court held that the defendant did not waive his Sixth Amendment rights by not calling the child complainant to testify, and the admission of the videotaped interview was harmful error.
• United States v. Baker
  999 F.2d 412· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court held that the government's comments on the defendants' post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence during closing rebuttal argument violated their due process rights and were not harmless error.
• United States v. Bolstad
  998 F.2d 597· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-12
  The court held that the defendant was sufficiently connected to the savings and loan and that there was overwhelming evidence of his intent to defraud, affirming his convictions.
• Bender v. Brumley
  994 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-12
  The court held that instructing the jury that a "significant injury" was required to prove a federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was reversible error, as it conflicted with Supreme Court precedent requiring focus on the maliciousness of the force used, not the ex
• United States v. Jacinto Garcia-Orozco
  997 F.2d 1302· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-12
  The erroneous admission of prior arrest and conviction evidence was not harmless and prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal.
• Castillo v. Stainer
  997 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-09
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the chaining error had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict, thus the error was harmless.
• United States v. Kermit Oris Bear Stops
  997 F.2d 451· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-06
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding a prior sexual assault on the victim by other individuals was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, requiring reversal of the conviction on that count. However, convictions on other count
• Suniga v. R.J. Bunnell
  998 F.2d 664· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that instructing the jury on a non-existent felony-murder theory, which was not relied upon by the prosecution, so infected the trial as to violate due process, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.
• United States v. Caro
  997 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-01
  A prosecutor must clearly disclose the package nature of a plea agreement to the district court, and the court must conduct a more careful voluntariness inquiry when codefendants' pleas are interdependent, to ensure substantial rights are not affected.
• Murray v. State
  622 So. 2d 1342· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-06-23
  On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court's failure to make express findings on habitual felony offender (HFO) sentencing criteria constituted reversible error. The court held that where the evidence of prior con
• United States v. ALT
  996 F.2d 827· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-18
• United States v. Miller
  995 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-16
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and a prior guilty plea to a substantive offense did not bar a subsequent conspiracy conviction.
• Roberts v. State
  619 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-15
  The court affirmed the habitual felony offender sentence but reversed sentences for probation violations due to statutory maximums and procedural errors.
• Fuller v. State
  619 So. 2d 504· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-15
• McKEE v. Crispus C. NIX
  995 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-14
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner procedurally defaulted on most claims and the remaining claims lacked merit or were based on state law errors.
• Hodges v. State
  619 So. 2d 497· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-11
  On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed Billy Joe Hodges's sentence as a habitual violent felony offender for unarmed robbery, rejecting both his constitutional challenge to the habitual offender statute and his argument that the tria
• Nethery v. Collins
  993 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The court held that the jury instructions prevented adequate consideration of mitigating evidence of voluntary intoxication, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• United States v. Taren-Palma
  997 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10
  The court held that admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's firearm possession during a simple drug transaction was reversible error due to undue prejudice.
• United States v. Mejia-Alarcon
  995 F.2d 982· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-07
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting a prior food stamp conviction for impeachment purposes, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in failing to explicitly ascertain the defendant's consent to a stipulation, and
• Peek v. State
  619 So. 2d 434· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-04
  On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal reviewed a habitual offender sentencing case where the trial court failed to make specific statutory findings. The court held that the failure to make ministerial findings regarding prior convictions was
• Standen v. Hard Whitley
  994 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-04
  The court held that a prior guilty plea, if improperly admitted, taints a jury verdict, entitling the defendant to a fair trial.
• Pemberton v. Collins
  991 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-27
  A federal court on habeas review may consider a confession admitted at trial, even if a state appellate court later held it inadmissible under state law, provided its admission did not violate federal constitutional standards.
• United States v. Mason
  993 F.2d 406· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-17
  The court held that cross-examining character witnesses with guilt-assuming hypothetical questions was improper and, given the weakness of the evidence, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Atha Lennette Parsons
  993 F.2d 38· 4th Cir.· 1993-05-07
  The court held that the rental of a single-family home used in an activity affecting interstate commerce falls within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and that ex parte communications between the court and jury, while technically violating Rule 43(a), were harmless error.
• Stallings v. State
  618 So. 2d 319· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-05-07
  Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated battery for stabbing a victim during a confrontation. The court reversed because the trial court's instruction on flight as evidence of guilt was harmless error, given substantial evidence supporting self-defense and
• United States v. Rangel-Arreola
  991 F.2d 1519· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05
  The court held that while the district court erred in failing to ensure the defendant had an opportunity to review and discuss the presentence report, remand for resentencing was not required because the defendant suffered no prejudice from the violation.
• Ervin Alphonso Hare v. State
  617 So. 2d 821· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-05-03
• United States v. Alonzo
  991 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-27
  The court held that out-of-court statements made by a conspirator after his arrest to police are inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because they are not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, and this error was not harmless.
• Feller v. State
  617 So. 2d 1091· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-04-16
  Joseph Feller appeals his conviction for sexual battery on a child, challenging the trial court's order allowing the child victim to testify by videotape under Florida Statute § 92.53. The appellate court affirms the conviction but certifies two questions of great public importan