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

• Jackson v. State
  707 So. 2d 412· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-03-20 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Jackson appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault with a firearm. The appellate court reversed his conviction, finding two reversible errors: (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony about an anonymous tip identifying the defendant, and (2) the p
• Worden v. State
  603 So. 2d 581· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-17 ·cited 22×
  Competent, substantial circumstantial evidence supported the defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse where the child died of rapid cerebral edema from blunt-force trauma occurring within two hours of death, the defendant had sole care of the chil
• Doty v. Sewall
  908 F.2d 1053· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 22×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment on most issues, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or denial of a new trial, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on state law claims.
• United States v. Drummond
  903 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 22×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The dissent argues that a trial court's failure to inform a defendant of their right to appeal, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(a)(2), should not be subject to harmless error analysis.
• United States v. Mendoza
  876 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, holding that Mendoza's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, the mandatory minimum penalties were constitutional, the evidence supported a single conspiracy, severance was not warranted, and any error in admitting other crime
• Coleman v. McCORMICK
  874 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 22×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's sentence must be reversed due to procedural issues in place at the time of trial regarding capital punishment hearings.
• United States v. Pupo
  841 F.2d 1235· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 22×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  A conviction under an indictment that fails to allege an essential element of the offense, specifically scienter, is invalid if the objection is raised before verdict. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative does not warrant a new trial.
• Fencl v. Abrahamson
  841 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that references to the petitioner's post-Miranda silence violated due process, but these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel or jury instruction claims.
• United States v. Armand W. Robinson, Sr.
  832 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting voir dire regarding potential jurors' knowledge of attorneys' publicity, this error was harmless and did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The court also affirmed limitations on cross-examination of informants, findin
• LEE v. State
  508 So. 2d 1300· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-06-17 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Sylvester Lee appeals his conviction for kidnapping, sexual battery, and robbery. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an unrelated bank robbery committed hours after the charged offenses, which was inadmissible collateral crime e
• High v. Kemp
  819 F.2d 988· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances were adequate and that the prosecutor's comments about other murders did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. The court also found that Batson v. Kentucky does not apply retroactively to collateral
• United States v. Musa "Moses" Sweiss
  800 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while portions of the excluded tape recording were admissible under the rule of completeness, the defendant waived the issue by failing to lay a sufficient foundation at trial.
• Marr v. State
  470 So. 2d 703· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-29 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Paul Allen Marr appeals his sexual battery conviction, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's rape shield statute as applied to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct relevant to bias, and contesting the trial court's denial of a requested jury instruction
• Millett v. State
  460 So. 2d 489· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-12-10 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Kevin Millett appeals his conviction for child abuse and a four-year sentence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentencing because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for deviating from guideline sentencing recommendations.
• United States v. Schepp
  746 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of flight, allowing leading questions, limiting cross-examination, admitting coconspirator statements, or in its handling of the government's closing remarks.
• United States v. Monaghan
  741 F.2d 1434· D.C. Cir.· 1984-08-24 ·cited 22×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the prosecutor's repeated comments on the defendant's silence, particularly in a case with a questionable witness, constituted reversible error because they were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Robinson v. Percy
  738 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that routine booking questions do not constitute interrogation under Miranda, and that while subsequent questioning in the interrogation room violated Robinson's Fifth Amendment rights, the admission of those statements was harmless error due to a valid subsequent
• Alonza Rowell v. State
  450 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-05-24 ·cited 22×
  Alonza Rowell was convicted of burglary and theft charges. During trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony suggesting the defendant had exercised his right to remain silent after arrest, prompting a defense objection and mistrial motion. The court reversed the conviction under Fl
• United States ex rel. Melvin H. Sullivan v. Fairman
  731 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the petitioner forfeited his due process claims by failing to fairly present them to the state courts, but reversed and remanded the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for further proceedings.
• United States v. Terry
  729 F.2d 1063· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting tape-recorded conversations and evidence of prior misconduct, and that the defendants' other alleged trial errors did not warrant reversal.
• Hall v. State
  444 So. 2d 1019· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-01-17 ·cited 22×
  Fabian Hall appealed his armed robbery conviction, challenging the prosecutor's final argument to the jury as containing unsupportable and improper statements designed to appeal to sympathy. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that while portions of the p
• Hughes Anderson Bagley v. Lumpkin
  719 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The government's failure to disclose impeachment evidence regarding key witnesses, which prevented effective cross-examination, constitutes a due process violation requiring automatic reversal.
• Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc.
  716 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court's original disposition held that the trial court's order was voidable on appeal, and there was sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury.
• Jones v. State
  423 So. 2d 520· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-12-15 ·cited 22×
  A notice of appeal that erroneously identifies a non-appealable interlocutory order will not be dismissed where the notice and record reveal the appellant's intent to appeal an appealable final order or judgment, the appellee shows no prejudice, and the appellate court has jurisd
• United States v. Lane
  693 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 22×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the use of a paid informant on a case-by-case basis did not violate established legal standards, and the trial judge's conduct and statements did not constitute reversible error.
• Recinos v. State
  420 So. 2d 95· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-02-02 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Francisco Recinos appeals his second-degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in instructing defense counsel not to communicate with Recinos during recesses while he testified. The appellate court affirmed, finding that although the trial court's restrict
• Burton v. Bergman
  649 F.2d 428· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-21 ·cited 22×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting habeas relief based on a single word in jury instructions, as the instructions as a whole were not prejudicial and the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.
• Monroe v. State
  396 So. 2d 241· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-04-03 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Willie Monroe appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and display of a firearm in the commission of a felony, claiming prosecutorial misconduct regarding his post-arrest silence and that the firearm offense was a lesser included offense barring separate conviction. Th
• GEE v. State
  400 So. 2d 466· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-02-11 ·cited 22×
  John Edward Gee appeals his burglary conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to give a mandatory jury instruction on penalties despite his counsel's request. The court reverses and remands for a new trial, but certifies to the Florida Supreme Court a question regarding whether
• United States v. Rodriguez
  627 F.2d 110· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  A new trial is not necessary or proper despite a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's failure to testify, as the comment was unintentional and prejudice was vitiated by curative instructions.
• Carvey v. LeFEVRE
  611 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a suspect's waiver of counsel is ineffective if the suspect is not informed of a pending indictment, but the admission of statements obtained in violation of this right may be harmless error.
• United States v. Moore
  604 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-21 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the government can prove the absence of a first sale through circumstantial evidence and that the failure to instruct the jury on the first sale doctrine was harmless error. It also affirmed that proof of distribution alone can suffice for infringement under t
• Thundereal Corp. v. Sterling
  368 So. 2d 923· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-03-09 ·cited 22×
  In this personal injury action involving an actress who claimed negligence injuries while performing as an independent contractor at a dinner theater, the appellate court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, rejecting defendants' argument that workers' compensation was th
• Keen v. Detroit Diesel Allison and Detroit Diesel Engine
  569 F.2d 547· 10th Cir.· 1978-04-03 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the erroneous admission of unanswered discovery requests, presented to the jury as deemed admitted, was not harmless error and required reversal.
• Jones v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc.
  342 So. 2d 104· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-02-01 ·cited 22×
  Plaintiff Jones appealed a jury verdict finding no negligence against Airport Rent-A-Car and its driver King in a personal injury case. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial and holding that any error regarding the exclud
• United States v. Ayo-Gonzalez
  536 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-06 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that mens rea is not a required element for conviction under 16 U.S.C. § 1081, and any Miranda violation regarding the defendant's identification as captain was harmless error.
• Olive Fields v. Chicago
  532 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 22×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately presented the defendant railroad's theory of contributory negligence and the railroad's duty to maintain the crossing, and therefore substantial justice was done.
• Int'l Merger & Acquisition Consultants, Inc. v. Armac Enters., Inc.
  531 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that alleged trial errors did not affect substantial rights, the jury verdict was supported by evidence, and the award of interest was justified, thus affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Russo
  527 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the wiretap applications and orders were sufficient because the government did not have probable cause to believe Russo was committing the offense or would use the target phones at the time of the initial wiretap authorization. Even if there were errors, they
• United States v. Perez
  493 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 22×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
• United States v. Medansky
  486 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1973-10-03 ·cited 22×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a hung jury, nor did it err in subsequent rulings during the second trial, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. van Scoy
  482 F.2d 347· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in consolidating the indictments or in denying the motion for a mistrial, affirming the conviction.
• Henry v. State
  277 So. 2d 78· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-05-04 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Henry was convicted of robbery after a jury trial and appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses such as attempted robbery, larceny, and assault. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that because defense counsel affir
• United States ex rel. Alexander Little v. Twomey
  477 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 22×
  Defense counsel's failure to properly present an insanity defense, even if the psychiatrist's testimony was improperly excluded, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense lacked substance.
• United States v. Haley
  452 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that any errors occurring at trial were harmless and did not prejudice the defendants' right to a fair trial, affirming their convictions.
• Reyes v. State
  253 So. 2d 907· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-10-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the State improperly introduced evidence of unrelated prior crimes on rebuttal, which prejudiced the defendant and warranted reversal.
• United States v. Bekowies
  432 F.2d 8· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in excluding statements made by the defendant, finding them admissible under an objective standard for custodial interrogation and that any error was harmless.
• Russell v. State
  233 So. 2d 154· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-03-23 ·cited 22×
  Glen Russell appealed his conviction for assault with intent to commit first-degree murder and breaking and entering a vehicle with intent to commit a crime. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor made highly prejudicial and inflammatory stat
• United States v. Tsoi Kwan Sang
  416 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Error Standard
• Blackwell v. United States
  405 F.2d 625· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-16 ·cited 22×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that the defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that his procedural challenges regarding witness testimony, jury instructions, and grand jury proceedings lacked merit.