Harmless Error Analysis

4,402 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Self v. State
  528 So. 2d 526· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-20
  The court held that while a flight instruction contained an erroneous mandatory term, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, but the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant above the recommended guidelines as a habitual offender.
• Weyman H. House, Jr. v. Lavoie
  843 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27
  The court held that even if the jury instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of intent and malice.
• Jones v. Dugger
  839 F.2d 1441· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-14
  The dissent argues that the majority erred in allowing lay testimony derived from an unlawful interrogation, violating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Pool v. Dowdle
  834 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-15
  Excluding expert testimony on police identification procedures was constitutionally permissible, but excluding evidence and cross-examination regarding a witness's reprimand violated the Confrontation Clause.
• Halpin v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & World Hospitality Ltd., Inc.
  516 So. 2d 1027· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-12-04
  The court held that admitting employer records not provided to the appellant compromised the fairness of the proceedings, constituting a material procedural error.
• Corbin v. State
  516 So. 2d 42· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-01
• Meyer Biller v. Lopes
  834 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-19
  The court held that the use of a conviction obtained through compelled testimony for impeachment purposes, which deterred the defendant from testifying, constitutes a fundamental constitutional error justifying habeas corpus relief, even if the defendant did not testify.
• Blue v. State
  513 So. 2d 754· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-10-07
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding a caretaker's statement, as the state failed to lay a proper predicate for the excited utterance exception.
• Broxson v. State
  510 So. 2d 1255· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-08-19
  Appellants Broxson and Mixon were convicted of attempted sexual battery with slight force, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury on simple battery, a necessarily lesser included offense. The appellate court held this omission was reversible error requiring a new trial.
• Doyle Thomas Williams v. State
  510 So. 2d 656· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-07-31
  Doyle Thomas Williams appealed his conviction for engaging a child in sexual activity. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony that violated the rules of evidence and prejudiced the
• Garcia-Perez v. State
  510 So. 2d 1051· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-07-28
  Garcia-Perez was convicted of cocaine trafficking based primarily on officer testimony about possessing the drug. The appellate court reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony about an informant's tip, and this error was not harmless given the jury's
• Brazell Haynes v. State
  502 So. 2d 507· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-16
  Brazell Haynes appeals his cocaine possession conviction, challenging the admission of a police officer's testimony about statements made by a confidential informant. The court agreed that the informant's statements constituted inadmissible hearsay and that their admission was no
• United States v. BEN M. Hogan Co., Inc.
  809 F.2d 480· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-12
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, did not constitute prejudicial error regarding the effect on interstate commerce, and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Country v. Bartee
  808 F.2d 686· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-08
  The court held that a parolee denied the right to cross-examine an adverse witness must demonstrate prejudice to warrant relief beyond expenses and attorney's fees.
• United States v. Cook
  794 F.2d 561· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-20
  The court held that the disclosure of grand jury transcripts to deputized state officers was permissible under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), probable cause existed for the search warrant despite potentially tainted information, prosecutor's comments on one defendant's silence did not viol
• California v. Hamilton
  476 U.S. 1301· U.S.· 1986-05-06
  The Court stayed the enforcement of the California Supreme Court's judgment pending further action, recognizing the potential impact of a related case on the issue.
• Strand v. United States
  780 F.2d 1497· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-23
  The court held that any error in failing to consider documentary evidence not included in the record, or in applying the burden of proof for undisclosed exculpatory evidence, was harmless.
• Wells v. State
  477 So. 2d 26· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-10-15
  The court reversed an attempted second-degree murder conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding witness statements, which was not harmless error despite the witness's presence at trial.
• United States ex rel. Frank Carlos Colon v. DeROBERTIS
  774 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-04
  The admission of a codefendant's statement, which differed critically from the defendant's own confession on key facts, was not harmless error under the Confrontation Clause.
• Skislak v. Wilson
  472 So. 2d 776· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-06-25
  The court held that a statement by plaintiff's counsel referencing the defendant's insurance company paying for damages was so inflammatory and prejudicial that it warranted a new trial.
• Brown v. State
  472 So. 2d 475· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-04-17
  The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in affirming the conviction based on the invited error doctrine when the trial court should have granted a mistrial for unsolicited, previously excluded testimony.
• Reholga Mack v. State
  461 So. 2d 142· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-11-27
  Reholga Mack appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and unlawful firearm possession arising from the shooting of an off-duty police officer. The appellate court affirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence, finding prosecutorial misconduct harmless
• Solomon v. Harris
  749 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-06
  The court held that the appellant was not deprived of the reasonably effective assistance of counsel, as neither prong of the Strickland test was met.
• Shepherd v. State
  453 So. 2d 215· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-07-26
  Clinton Shepherd appealed his convictions for simple battery and resisting a police officer with violence, challenging his exclusion from the courtroom and the trial court's exclusion of all evidence regarding an insanity defense. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the e
• Crick v. Smith
  729 F.2d 1038· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-06
  The court held that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile court judge would have waived jurisdiction even if apprised of the omission of 'best interest' findings, rendering the due process violation harmless error.
• Kirkland v. State
  436 So. 2d 361· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-08-16
  Kirkland appeals an involuntary placement order under Florida's Baker Act, arguing the evidence did not support the placement criteria and that the trial judge failed to notify the state attorney. The appellate court affirmed the placement order, finding substantial evidence supp
• Pelham v. Superintendent OF the Sch. Bd. OF Wakulla Cnty.
  436 So. 2d 951· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-07-13
  A Florida school board dismissed a high school principal and teacher for misconduct based on two relatively minor charges involving conversion of school funds totaling approximately $141. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the hearing officer and school board faile
• Rolle v. State
  431 So. 2d 326· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-17
  James Rolle, a sixteen-year-old, appeals his armed robbery and firearm possession convictions arising from a home invasion. The Florida appellate court affirmed the denial of his suppression motion but reversed due to the trial court's admission of highly prejudicial and irreleva
• McNEAL v. Miller Trailers & R.P. Hewitt & Assocs.
  429 So. 2d 720· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-03-11
  An injured worker appealed a denial of psychiatric treatment benefits. The First District Court of Appeal reversed because the deputy commissioner erroneously admitted into evidence a late, unauthenticated letter from Dr. Piotrowski that contradicted the jointly submitted medical
• Purwin v. Louie L. Wainwright
  436 So. 2d 138· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-01-26
  A petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking a belated appeal based on ineffective appellate counsel is denied if the petitioner fails to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged deficiency.
• Vernal E. Malcolm v. State
  415 So. 2d 891· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-06-29
  Malcolm's convictions for marijuana sale and possession were reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of unrelated drug investigations and a prior similar sale at the same location. The admission of such 'collateral crimes' evidence violated the Williams rul
• The City OF Live OAK v. Sargent-Sowell, Inc.
  413 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-04-29
  In this consolidated appeal arising from a vehicular collision at a traffic light in Live Oak, Florida, the court addressed indemnity liability between tortfeasors and the prejudicial effect of improperly submitted evidence. The court affirmed the directed verdict against the Cit
• Noyes S. Bishop, Jr. v. The United States
  673 F.2d 1369· Ct. Cl.· 1982-03-24
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records to determine if the Officer Efficiency Report was made retroactively and if that retroactivity prejudiced the plaintiff's promotion.
• Johnson v. State
  408 So. 2d 813· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-01-19
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper, and that the cross-examination of the defendant was not improper.
• Gray v. Raines
  662 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-23
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for statutory rape did not violate due process because he had actual notice of the charge and the lesser offense was necessarily included within the greater offense charged.
• Peterson v. State
  405 So. 2d 997· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-07-14
  Peterson was convicted of attempted burglary after the prosecution presented improper testimony about his invocation of Miranda rights to terminate questioning. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, holding that references to a defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment r
• United States v. Tunnell
  650 F.2d 1124· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13
  The court held that the giving of an unconstitutional jury instruction under 21 U.S.C. § 176a was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and requires reversal.
• Courtright v. State
  400 So. 2d 1277· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-06-24
  James Courtright was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault after being charged with first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The appellate court affirmed, finding that any error in admitting a defendant's statement to a witness about wanting to en
• Carmelo Canet v. Turner
  606 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-07
  The court held that a claim regarding an illegal sentence, based on a recent Florida Supreme Court ruling, was not exhausted and must be remanded for state court consideration. Other claims were affirmed.
• United States v. Evodio Cortes
  600 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-17
  The court held that excluding evidence of the defendant's appearance and vehicle condition was prejudicial error because it was relevant to the element of fraudulent intent under 18 U.S.C. § 912.
• Harris v. State
  349 So. 2d 854· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-09-21
  James C. Harris, Jr. was convicted of third-degree robbery (without a weapon) after being charged with robbery with a weapon. On appeal, Harris challenged the limitation of peremptory challenges during jury selection and the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, with the ap
• Invs. Thrift Corp. v. Sexton
  491 F.2d 768· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-04
  The court held that evidence of subsequent operations losses was relevant to determining the stock's value at the time of sale, provided proper jury instructions were given.
• United States v. Parks
  455 F.2d 792· 8th Cir.· 1972-02-16
  The court held that while the evidence supported the conviction for moving cattle without a required certificate, a new trial is warranted due to the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence regarding brucellosis.
• Ysidoro Cruz Guerra v. United States
  447 F.2d 457· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-23
  The court held that a sentence need not be vacated if the sentencing judge did not rely on allegedly invalid prior convictions for enhancement, and the sentence imposed was within legal limits for a first offense.
• Whitty v. State OF Wis. & Wilbur J. Schmidt
  436 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-30
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of evidence or the procedures used at his trial, and that any errors were harmless.
• State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Cooper
  241 So. 2d 419· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-12-15
  The court found it unfair for the Department of Transportation to condemn land for fill material, value it as timberland, and then sell the fill material to its contractor at a commercial price.
• Seidel v. State
  240 So. 2d 521· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-09-11
  Two defendants convicted of conspiracy to commit murder appealed their convictions on the ground that their confrontation rights were violated when a co-defendant's incriminating statement was admitted at their joint trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the admission
• United States v. Castello
  426 F.2d 905· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-01
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment rights, and this violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Brook
  414 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-23
  The court held that while hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted, it did not affect the jury's verdict, and the conviction for evasion was proper.
• Clark v. Nelson
  411 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-26
  The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify, coupled with the jury instruction, violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.