Harmless Error Doctrine

1,383 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,569 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Bowen v. Kemp
  832 F.2d 546· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 38×
• United States v. Dederich
  825 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 38×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, affecting fundamental fairness, could be raised on appeal after conviction, distinguishing it from technical errors addressed by Mechanik.
• United States v. DiPASQUALE
  740 F.2d 1282· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the jury instructions were adequate, and the evidence supported the jury's finding of a single conspiracy to collect claimed debts by extortionate means.
• United States v. Olson
  716 F.2d 850· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 38×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the harmless error rule does not apply to the procedural requirements for imposing enhanced sentences under 21 U.S.C. § 851, and failure to comply with these requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction to impose such a sentence.
• Grizzell v. Louie L. Wainwright
  692 F.2d 722· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 38×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The use of prior uncounseled felony convictions to impeach a defendant's credibility, when those convictions are constitutionally invalid, constitutes a due process violation that is not harmless error if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence influenced the jury's a
• Steele v. Taylor
  684 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 38×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge believes the defendants were deprived of their Sixth Amendment right to confrontation due to the admission of double hearsay evidence, and that the waiver of this right was improperly found.
• United States v. Brock
  667 F.2d 1311· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 38×
  The court affirms convictions, finding warrantless beeper surveillance permissible under Ninth Circuit precedent.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Osborn Transp., Inc.
  589 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Board agent's conduct, while not ideal, did not create an appearance of partiality sufficient to overturn the election, and any error in excluding affidavits was harmless.
• Green Miller, Jr. v. Poretsky
  595 F.2d 780· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence regarding other tenants' discrimination claims was erroneous, it was harmless error and did not affect the substantial rights of the parties, thus not warranting reversal.
• United States v. Bynum
  566 F.2d 914· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 38×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that severance was not required due to complexity or antagonistic defenses, and that evidentiary rulings and procedural matters were not abuses of discretion or reversible error.
• In re DI Bella
  518 F.2d 955· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-08 ·cited 38×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while excluding counsel during the reading of grand jury minutes was an error, it did not require reversal because the appellant's refusal to testify was unconditional and the error was harmless under the specific facts.
• United States ex rel. Edward Doggett v. Yeager
  472 F.2d 229· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-16 ·cited 38×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's failure to adequately protect the jury from prejudicial newspaper publicity violated due process, requiring a new trial.
• Marshall v. United States
  436 F.2d 155· D.C. Cir.· 1970-09-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the conviction on the lesser offense of entering with intent to rob merges with the completed robbery conviction, other convictions are affirmed, and any error regarding identification lineups was harmless.
• Application of Larry Buffalo Chief v. State OF S.D. & Don R. Erickson
  425 F.2d 271· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the issue of whether a conflict of interest arose during trial, depriving the petitioner of effective counsel, had not been fully and fairly presented to the South Dakota courts and therefore remanded for further proceedings in the state court.
• Ware v. United States
  376 F.2d 717· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-01 ·cited 38×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury communication, while a procedural impropriety, does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Williams v. Scott
  153 So. 2d 18· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-04-26 ·cited 38×
  The Williams sued the Scott family for injuries Katie Williams sustained when struck by a vehicle operated by minor Claire Scott at a Tampa intersection. The jury ruled for defendants, and on appeal, the Williams challenged the admission of an accident report statement and the tr
• Mrs. Edith Adams Degelos v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York & United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
  313 F.2d 809· 5th Cir.· 1963-02-06 ·cited 38×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion erred in reversing the judgment based on a procedural ruling that did not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
• Hawkins v. United States
  310 F.2d 849· D.C. Cir.· 1962-11-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to raise the issue of insanity, but the jury was justified in finding the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt, and any judicial misconduct was harmless error.
• Kleven v. United States
  240 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1957-01-22 ·cited 38×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the evidence was sufficient, the supplemental jury charge was not coercive, the failure to re-admonish the jury was not error, and a juror's relative's employment did not demonstrate prejudice.
• United States v. Tarresse Leonard
  4 F.4th 1134· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-08 ·cited 37×·via Harmless Error Review
  An indictment that omits the knowledge-of-felon-status element required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and any such omission is subject to harmless-error review.
• State v. Raydo
  713 So. 2d 996· Fla.· 1998-06-25 ·cited 37×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a defendant must testify to preserve an impeachment claim on appeal. The Court adopted the federal rule from Luce v. United States, holding that a defendant must testify to preserve impeachmen
• United States v. Merlin H. Suggs
  755 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper comment on a defendant's failure to testify before the grand jury was harmless error, and an incriminating statement made by the defendant was admissible as a spontaneous exclamation.
• Belen Torres v. Cnty. OF Oakland & Oakland Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs. Bd.
  758 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 37×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that admitting testimony containing a legal conclusion was harmless error, and that a single instance of derogatory language or a downgraded evaluation, without more, does not constitute a separate claim for employment discrimination.
• Roban v. State
  384 So. 2d 683· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-21 ·cited 37×
  A comment by a state witness on a defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent, when followed by a timely mistrial motion, constitutes reversible error without harmless error analysis.
• United States v. Crumley
  565 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 37×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that limiting cross-examination of a government witness regarding their motive for testifying, specifically concerning the discovery of a stolen Cadillac, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Rodrick D. Williams v. State
  242 So. 3d 280· Fla.· 2018-02-22 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Alleyne v. United States requires a jury, not a trial court, to make the factual finding under Fla. Stat. § 775.082(1)(b) as to whether a juvenile offender actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim, because such finding
• Bessman Okafor v. State
  225 So. 3d 768· Fla.· 2017-06-08 ·cited 36×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  Bessman Okafor was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder in a September 10, 2012 home invasion and shooting that killed Alex Zaldivar. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated his death sentence because the jury verdict was not unanimous (11-1
• United States v. Cameron
  907 F.2d 1051· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a motion for hospitalization, filed before trial, did not constitute a sufficient offer of proof for an insanity defense when the exclusion of evidence was based on a procedural failure to provide adequate notice. The court also noted that the district court's
• United States v. Fleet Wallace Maull
  806 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 36×
  The court held that concurrent sentences for conspiracy and Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charges constitute impermissible double punishment, requiring vacation of the conspiracy conviction. Other convictions were affirmed.
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
• United States v. De Rosa
  783 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment and the convictions, finding no prosecutorial misconduct warranting dismissal, that the defendant had a duty to disclose information under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, that the false statements were material, and that the
• Raffone v. State
  483 So. 2d 761· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Two defendants convicted of drug trafficking charges appeal, arguing the trial court violated discovery rules and failed to conduct a Richardson inquiry when the state introduced new crime lab evidence on the first day of trial showing additional cocaine that substantially altere
• Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn
  777 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 36×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed as a whole, did not deny the defendant due process.
• United States v. Kuna
  760 F.2d 813· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not constructively amend the indictment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the restitution condition imposed on probation for the false statement count was vacated.
• Raper v. Mintzes
  706 F.2d 161· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 36×
  The prosecutor's comments on the uncontradicted nature of the evidence did not violate the petitioner's right against self-incrimination because the evidence could have been contradicted by sources other than the petitioner, and the comments were a permissible rebuttal to defense
• United States v. Brown
  692 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-10 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the substantive offense in Count Eight, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that count. However, the court affirmed the convictions on the remaining
• United States v. Hazeem
  679 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 36×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Hazeem of aiding and abetting bank fraud and conspiracy, and that his motion for a new trial was untimely.
• Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Bd. OF Educ.
  649 F.2d 434· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that summary judgment for individual defendants was improper due to lack of notice under Rule 56(c), but res judicata barred the § 1983 claim against all defendants despite the intervening Monell decision.
• United States v. Hughes A. Bagley
  641 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 36×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court should have remanded for a new trial due to extrinsic evidence potentially affecting the jury's verdict.
• Hunter v. State
  389 So. 2d 661· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-10-01 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after being indicted for first-degree murder, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury on third-degree murder despite instructing on manslaughter. The court held that the omission of instructions on the immediately lesser deg
• United States v. Santos
  613 F.2d 1205· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a single conspiracy encompassing the entire period alleged, particularly regarding the November transactions and defendant Izzi's involvement, but affirmed the convictions of other defendants for the earlier conspiracy. T
• Murray v. State
  378 So. 2d 111· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-01-02 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Willie Murray appealed his aggravated battery conviction based on the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the applicable penalty. Although the court agreed that the 1977 amendment to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.390(a) made penalty instructions mandatory, it affirm
• Smith v. J. Joseph Danyo, M.D.
  585 F.2d 83· 3d Cir.· 1978-10-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to disqualify, that the jury's answers to interrogatories were not inconsistent, and that prohibiting the use of a chart in closing arguments was a permissible discretionary ruling.
• United States v. Batts
  573 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury should not have been permitted to consider evidence derived from an unlawful seizure, as it was not harmless error.
• United States v. Turquitt
  557 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior misconduct not resulting in a conviction, used for impeachment, was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Liddy
  542 F.2d 76· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 36×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the dismissal of a prior state prosecution, the application of 18 U.S.C. § 241, or the denial of a lesser included offense charge.
• Lynnwell Smith v. Estelle
  527 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
• United States v. Pravato
  505 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of a scrap of paper found in an open suitcase was harmless error, and affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence on one count due to erroneous concurrent sentencing.
• United States v. Jones
  487 F.2d 676· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violations of the National Firearms Act was proper, as the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law, and any evidentiary errors were harmless.
• Cochran v. State
  280 So. 2d 42· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-07-17 ·cited 36×
  Appellant Cochran was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying his objection to the Assistant State Attorney's improper comments about defense tactics. Despite finding the prosecution's conduct highly improper and une