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

• Hosper v. State
  513 So. 2d 234· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-09-29 ·cited 29×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Daniel Hosper was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after trial testimony in which he admitted possessing marijuana to explain his nervous behavior at the time of arrest. The prosecution improperly questioned why he had not made this exculpatory statement earlier, effectively c
• Francis v. State
  473 So. 2d 672· Fla.· 1985-06-20 ·cited 29×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Bobby Marion Francis was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the brutal killing of Titus Walters, a confidential informant in a drug investigation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and death sentence, finding the evidence overwhelming
• United States v. Baynes
  687 F.2d 659· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-11 ·cited 29×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate potentially exculpatory voice exemplar evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and that prejudice must be shown for habeas relief.
• Samish v. United States
  223 F.2d 358· 9th Cir.· 1955-05-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the defendant's own testimony largely admitted to receiving taxable income, and any errors in the trial were harmless given the overwhelming evidence.
• Groover v. Hammond
  73 Fla. 1155· Fla.· 1917-05-25 ·cited 29×
  A declaration in a negligence action need not state damages in each count separately; it is sufficient if the declaration concludes with a statement of the amount of damages claimed. Where a declaration does not show contributory negligence on its face, the defendant cannot take
• Eston E. Anderson v. State
  780 So. 2d 1012· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-03-28 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Anderson's conviction for felony fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer because the jury instruction erroneously included an element not found in the statute—that the defendant fled "after having stopped." The court held that whi
• State v. Franklin
  618 So. 2d 171· Fla.· 1993-03-25 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Florida Supreme Court answered a certified question of great public importance regarding whether a trial court commits per se reversible error by providing the jury with complete written instructions without notice to counsel when the jury requests only a specific portion of
• United States v. Yerks
  918 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in admitting other crimes evidence, denying a motion for acquittal, or applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Pinto
  850 F.2d 927· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed convictions, finding that while prosecutorial tactics were concerning and potentially improper, they did not rise to the level of reversible error or substantial prejudice to the defendants.
• United States v. Dotson
  821 F.2d 1034· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a prior consistent statement, even if non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1), must still satisfy an exception for each level of hearsay under Rule 805 for the entire statement to be admissible.
• United States v. Widgery
  778 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Standard
  A judge's ex parte communication with the jury, even if violating procedural rules, is only reversible error if it affects the defendant's substantial rights and is not harmless.
• State v. Burch
  476 So. 2d 663· Fla.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
• Barker v. Morris
  761 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 28×
  The admission of sworn, videotaped testimony from a deceased eyewitness did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the testimony was necessary and possessed particular guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Thad Richardson v. Lucas
  741 F.2d 753· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that the defendant's failure to testify could not be considered unfavorably was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
• Parks v. Zitnik
  453 So. 2d 434· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-06-29 ·cited 28×
  Parks appealed a judgment awarding Zitnik damages and sole title to real property acquired during their personal relationship. The court reversed because the trial judge improperly allowed extensive questioning about Parks' criminal history, including convictions unrelated to cre
• United States v. Leichtling
  684 F.2d 553· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause and that the defendant's consent to search was voluntary. Any error in admitting cumulative evidence was harmless.
• Josephs v. Harris Corp.
  677 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 28×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court erred by limiting evidence of a product's defectiveness to the date of manufacture rather than the date of sale, and that this error was prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
• Clark v. Blackburn
  632 F.2d 531· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 28×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the government's deliberate concealment of a material eyewitness, who later testified in a manner exculpating the petitioner, constituted a deprivation of due process that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. COX
  633 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting mockup bombs into the jury room, even if not ideal, was not reversible error given the limiting instruction and opportunity for cross-examination. It also held that the prosecutor's closing argument and witness testimony, while potentially improper,
• United States v. Harald Olav Nyman
  649 F.2d 208· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the testimony of a law clerk/investigator for the purpose of impeaching government witnesses, and this error was prejudicial.
• United States v. Passaro
  624 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 28×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to present exculpatory evidence were proper, the search of the defendant's wallet incident to arrest was lawful, and any potential Fifth Amendment violation from a single ambiguous prosecutorial comment was
• United States v. Mears
  614 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that even if the district court erred in admitting certain testimony, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence, and the jury's correction of its verdict was permissible.
• United States v. Aponte
  591 F.2d 1247· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, and even if it were not, the error was harmless due to effective assistance from appointed counsel.
• Bittaker v. Enomoto
  587 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of a defendant's constitutional right to self-representation is automatically prejudicial and does not require a showing of specific harm.
• United States v. Harlan Duhon and Donald Ray Lovett
  565 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for extortion under the Hobbs Act, and that various evidentiary and procedural rulings by the trial court were not grounds for reversal.
• Pub. Health Found. FOR Cancer & Blood Pressure Research, Inc. v. Cole
  352 So. 2d 877· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-11-09 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  This negligence case involves a plaintiff who was paralyzed after diving off a seawall at a recreation area owned by the defendants during low tide when water depths were dangerously shallow. The appellate court affirmed a $600,000 jury verdict for the plaintiff, rejecting the de
• Kelsey v. State OF Minn.
  565 F.2d 503· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that claims seeking speedier release must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, but damage claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can proceed, and the denial of the motion to amend the complaint was proper due to untimeliness.
• United States v. Huntley
  535 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 28×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendants' absence during the rendition of judgment was a harmless error, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict them of interstate transportation of falsely made securities.
• Lebowitz v. State
  313 So. 2d 473· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-05-27 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Walter Lebowitz, an attorney, was convicted of receiving stolen property—a purse worth approximately $200 that his client George Foley allegedly stole from Neiman-Marcus. Lebowitz appealed on multiple grounds, including claims that cross-examination violated his Fifth Amendment r
• The United States v. Eloy Baca
  494 F.2d 424· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a bill of particulars, refusing to disclose an informer's identity prior to trial, or in excusing a juror mid-trial. The defendant's absence from an in camera discussion regarding the juror's excusal was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Grant
  494 F.2d 120· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while it would have been better to inquire about racial prejudice, the failure to do so was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States ex rel. Carlos Ortiz v. Fritz
  476 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that under circuit precedent, Bruton v. United States does not apply when codefendants' confessions interlock.
• United States v. Marder
  474 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-07 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if a witness's identity was discovered through an illegal wiretap, their testimony is admissible if the government can show the identity came from an independent source or the connection is sufficiently attenuated, and its admission was harmless error giv
• United States v. O'Dell
  462 F.2d 224· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, which equated violations of state procedural rules with violations of federal constitutional rights, were erroneous and prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Bailey
  458 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the judgment, finding both the automobile and home searches valid.
• United States v. Satiris G. Fassoulis
  445 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy count and that the submission of unproven overt acts was harmless error. The court also found no constitutional deprivation regarding the identification of the defendant by voice and t
• United States v. Fried
  436 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an eyewitness identification was not impermissibly suggestive and that the conviction for entering the bank merged with the larceny conviction only for sentencing purposes, not for offenses.
• Howard v. State
  239 So. 2d 83· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that allowing an undisclosed witness to testify regarding the chain of custody, without substantive testimony about the crime, was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Vito Panepinto
  430 F.2d 613· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendants' procedural claims lacked merit and affirmed their convictions.
• United States v. Wick
  416 F.2d 61· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 28×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant's silence during interrogation was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence. The court also held that giving a jury instruction regarding the defendant's right not to testify was
• United States v. Nasta
  398 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1968-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the government's summation comments did not improperly draw attention to the defendant's failure to testify and that any potential error was harmless.
• Wade v. United States
  358 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1966-03-31 ·cited 28×·via Harmless Error Rule
  A lineup conducted without the defendant's counsel, requiring him to speak words for identification purposes, violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution.
• Keener v. Celebrezze
  340 F.2d 736· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a procedural error occurred under the Administrative Procedure Act, it was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• Bradford v. United States
  271 F.2d 58· 9th Cir.· 1959-03-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to permit defense counsel to inspect notes used by a government witness to refresh his recollection constituted reversible error under the Jencks rule, as the notes' materiality and potential for impeachment could not be assessed with
• Cherington v. State
  24 So. 3d 658· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-12-11 ·cited 27×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Charles Lyn Cherington appeals the revocation of his probation and his sentence. The court affirms the probation revocation but strikes the finding regarding one violated condition due to insufficient evidence, and reverses the sentence due to an erroneous scoresheet that incorre
• Solomon Willis v. State
  840 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-03-26 ·cited 27×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the summary denial of a postconviction relief motion. The court found that the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on the failure to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense, was facia
• Richardson v. Leaman Richardson
  722 So. 2d 280· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-12-31 ·cited 27×
  Ruth Richardson appeals a divorce judgment, challenging the trial court's failure to secure her alimony award with life insurance or a survivor annuity benefit, its unequal distribution of marital assets, and the insufficiency of her $350 monthly alimony award. The appellate cour
• Varona v. State
  674 So. 2d 823· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-05-15 ·cited 27×
  Sergio Varona was convicted of robbery, possession of cannabis, and resisting arrest. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the prosecutor made improper comments during voir dire that demeaned Varona's constitutional right to remain silent, and the sta
• Reyes v. State
  580 So. 2d 309· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-05-28 ·cited 27×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of prior consistent statements and testimony bolstering the victim's credibility constituted reversible error.
• Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sheronda A. Meeks
  560 So. 2d 778· Fla.· 1990-03-29 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a plaintiff's failure to join the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund as a defendant in a medical malpractice action limits recovery against a fund member health care provider to statutory cap