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

• Cline v. United States
  395 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-22 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not prejudiced by any errors at trial, including prosecutorial misconduct, identification procedures, or the admission of certain evidence.
• State v. Wadsworth
  210 So. 2d 4· Fla.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that had reversed the defendant's manslaughter conviction due to the admission of evidence about his prior drinking habits. The court held that evidence of a defendant's habitual intoxication is admissi
• Wright v. United States
  389 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-19 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a joint resident of an apartment can validly consent to a search of the premises, and that the admission of evidence of other offenses, even if erroneous, was harmless error under the circumstances.
• Nathalie L. Dupont v. S. Pac. Co.
  366 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 36×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court's consolidation of cases did not prejudice the substantial rights of the driver's survivors, nor was the appointment of lead counsel an abuse of discretion.
• Williams v. United States
  345 F.2d 733· D.C. Cir.· 1965-03-18 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as interpreted in Escobedo, does not require the exclusion of testimony from a police line-up identification conducted without counsel present, nor does it apply to such line-ups.
• Mims v. United States
  254 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give specific jury instructions regarding accomplice and perjurer testimony, nor in refusing to allow inquiry into the business relationship between the defendant and the father of an alleged accomplice, as the evidenc
• United States v. Liss
  137 F.2d 995· 2d Cir.· 1943-05-28 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge argues that the conviction of defendants other than Liss and Conte should be reversed due to a fundamentally unfair trial. The judge contends that the jury was likely confused by a misleading indictment charging one conspiracy when evidence showed three disti
• Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson WAX Dev. Corp.
  908 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Rule
  A federal magistrate cannot conduct voir dire in a civil jury trial without the parties' consent, and such an error is not subject to the harmless error rule. The doctrine of election of remedies, in its substantive aspect, prevents double recovery but does not bar a party from a
• United States v. Gillespie
  852 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's alleged homosexual relationship, expert testimony on child molester characteristics, and testimony concerning anatomically correct dolls without applying the Frye test, and these errors were not ha
• Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  799 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding the elements of churning was prejudicial and warrants a new trial, as it prevented the plaintiffs from adequately presenting their case.
• Powell v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  788 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge was supported by sufficient evidence and that an incorrect jury instruction on 'willfulness' was harmless error given the facts.
• Johnson v. State
  442 So. 2d 185· Fla.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Larry Joe Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in a capital case and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Johnson's challenges to the sheriff's dual role as both investigator and bailiff, the
• United States v. Sixto Mireles
  570 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the prosecutor's comments, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Willinsky v. State
  360 So. 2d 760· Fla.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Florida's Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's cross-examination question implying the defendant failed to testify at a preliminary hearing constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether the error is deemed harmless. The court reaffirmed the rule in Simmons v. State and re
• Martin v. State
  334 So. 2d 841· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-07-16 ·cited 35×
  Florida appellate court reversed a conviction for possession of a concealed weapon because the state improperly elicited testimony about the defendant's post-Miranda silence, which constitutes fundamental constitutional error warranting reversal without harmless error analysis.
• Thomas v. Savage
  513 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 35×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the introduction of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction at the punishment stage of a felony trial, even if constitutionally invalid, can be harmless error if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the sentence imposed.
• Williams v. State
  863 So. 2d 1189· Fla.· 2003-12-11 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed and remanded the Third District Court of Appeal's decision because that court applied an incorrect harmless error standard in reviewing a trial court error in Williams's criminal conviction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that appellate courts must
• Murray v. State
  838 So. 2d 1073· Fla.· 2002-10-03 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Gerald Murray was convicted of the 1990 first-degree murder of Alice Vest and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and vacated his sentence, finding that the trial court improperly admitted DNA evidence that failed to meet Frye standards for reli
• United States v. Canino
  949 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 34×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, finding no reversible error in the prosecutorial misconduct claims, the severance of a co-defendant, or the prosecutor's closing argument remarks on double jeopardy.
• United States v. Lenfesty
  923 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, the exclusion of prior convictions for impeachment, the denial of severance motions, and the application of Sentencing Guidelines were proper, and any errors were harmless.
• Gov't OF THE Virgin Islands v. Williams
  892 F.2d 305· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the Supreme Court's ruling in Gomez v. United States limits a magistrate's authority to preside over jury selection in felony trials, consent from the defendant can be relevant when analyzing the error under the plain error doctrine for cases not yet fin
• Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  847 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 34×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a prior similar accident and in redacting a portion of an incident report, as the evidence was not substantially similar or was unduly prejudicial.
• United States v. Fountain
  840 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the indictment without prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act and that alleged errors in grand jury proceedings were harmless after a petit jury conviction.
• United States v. Greschner
  802 F.2d 373· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to admonish witnesses not to discuss their testimony and in allowing Government counsel at ex parte hearings, these errors were harmless or waived. The court also found no error in denying requests for an expert witness,
• Thomas v. Kemp
  796 F.2d 1322· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 34×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court properly granted habeas corpus relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase due to failure to present mitigating evidence.
• United States v. Windfelder
  790 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's intentions and Lauretta Windfelder's intent, nor did it err in its jury instructions, and any error in admitting testimony about the defendant's intent was harmless.
• United States v. Dupuy
  760 F.2d 1492· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 34×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a district court errs by accepting conceded Brady material and failing to disclose it or determine its discoverability. The prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland cannot be shifted to the court.
• United States v. Allan Harvey Bibby (82-5705)
  752 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the misjoinder of certain tax counts was harmless error, and that while multiple conspiracies existed, the defendants were not prejudiced by being charged with a single conspiracy, except for Gillock's conspiracy conviction which was reversed due to prejudice
• United States v. Young
  730 F.2d 221· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-05 ·cited 34×
  A discrepancy between the indictment and the proof presented at trial constitutes a variance, not a constructive amendment, if it does not effectively modify an essential element of the offense and does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• Miguel v. Dep't OF THE Army
  727 F.2d 1081· Fed. Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 34×
  The court should have the MSPB redetermine the penalty itself, rather than remanding the issue back to the agency.
• United States v. KEY
  725 F.2d 1123· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 34×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly incriminated the appellant and was vital to the government's case violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Bobby Joe Norton (82-5032)
  700 F.2d 1072· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not subject to reversal based on entrapment, outrageous government conduct, judicial or jury bias, impossibility of the crime, variance between the indictment and proof, or insufficient evidence of knowledge that the explosives
• United States v. Gipson
  693 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to ensure the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Grala v. State
  414 So. 2d 621· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-06-01 ·cited 34×
  Paul Grala appeals his convictions for DWI manslaughter and vehicular homicide arising from a head-on collision that killed three people. The appellate court found the blood alcohol test results were improperly admitted due to lack of evidence regarding who withdrew the blood, bu
• Hubbard v. State
  411 So. 2d 1312· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-07-10 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Harold Hubbard, a juvenile at the time of committing a knife-point robbery in 1977, challenges his conviction after being charged as an adult under a 'direct file' statute enacted in 1978. The Florida appellate court affirms his conviction, holding that the retroactive applicatio
• United States v. Vargas-Rios
  607 F.2d 831· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of narcotics conspiracy.
• United States v. Dohm
  597 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the government can use a criminal defendant's statements made in a pre-trial bail hearing to prove guilt at trial, contrary to established precedent.
• United States v. Williams
  596 F.2d 44· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that an in-court identification, even after a suggestive accidental courtroom confrontation, is admissible if it is reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The court also found that the admission of prior similar acts evidence, if error, was harmless beyo
• Miller v. State OF N.C.
  583 F.2d 701· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially inflammatory remarks during closing arguments in a rape trial so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny the defendants due process of law.
• Catches v. United States
  582 F.2d 453· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous, affirming the denial of post-conviction relief because the appellant made an informed waiver of his right to appeal and the other alleged errors were not cognizable.
• United States v. Clavey
  565 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not err in refusing to release grand jury testimony, excluding rebuttal evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that any errors in handling jury communications were harmless.
• United States v. Masterson
  529 F.2d 30· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence, refusing special jury instructions on eyewitness identification, or prohibiting defense counsel from referring to surveillance photographs from a dismissed count in closing argument.
• United States v. Jenkins
  510 F.2d 495· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error regarding venue, jury instructions on inferences from testimony, or the scope of cross-examination.
• Stoddard Pickrell v. State
  301 So. 2d 473· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-09-27 ·cited 34×
  Stoddard Pickrell appeals his conviction for LSD possession after a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed his conviction despite finding that computer printout evidence identifying the vehicle used in the drug transaction was inadmissible hearsay, concluding the error was harm
• Kellam v. Thomas
  287 So. 2d 733· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-01-11 ·cited 34×
  The court considered whether a prior consistent statement of a witness could be admitted over objection after the witness's credibility was impeached by a prior inconsistent statement.
• United States v. Savage
  482 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the interception and photocopying of the prisoner's letter likely violated his Fourth Amendment rights, the admission of the letter was harmless error due to overwhelming other evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Calles
  482 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tax evasion and that no reversible trial errors occurred.
• United States v. Winston
  447 F.2d 1236· D.C. Cir.· 1971-06-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting rebuttal testimony concerning a pretrial identification, as the defense had opened the door by raising the issue of the confrontation.
• Kane v. United States
  431 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-26 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike testimony under the Jencks Act, admitting oral testimony regarding FDIC insurance, refusing to dismiss the indictment for unrecorded grand jury proceedings, or denying a motion to sever, as no prejudice
• YAM Sang Kwai v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  411 F.2d 683· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-17 ·cited 34×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the deportation order, finding that the appellant was not subjected to an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.