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

• United States v. Adams
  778 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that allowing the jury to convict based on misrepresentations about residence, when the indictment only charged misrepresentations about name, constructively amended the indictment, violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on charges present
• United States v. Barry D.W. Clark
  765 F.2d 297· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that violating a bank's lending limit, designed to protect against pecuniary loss, constitutes 'misapplication' under 18 U.S.C. § 656, and that the jury instructions, when viewed in context, were not erroneous.
• United States v. McCALL
  740 F.2d 1331· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the written statement of Neal and the oral testimony of Hernandez regarding Neal's statements were inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and not exceptions under FRE 803(24) or 804(b)(5).
• United States v. Phelps
  733 F.2d 1464· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the limitations on cross-examination were proper, the reading of the tape summary was harmless error, and the refusal of a jury instruction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Lilton B. Harris v. State
  449 So. 2d 892· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-04-11 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Harris appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel and double jeopardy, the admission of evidence of his four prior felony convictions, and the denial of his mo
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eskimo Radiator MFG. Co.
  688 F.2d 1315· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-01 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court held that Eskimo Radiator violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union, as the Board's certification was valid despite a procedural error in record transmission.
• United States v. MacCLOSKEY
  682 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction for the murder of a federal agent, but a new trial is required for the conspiracy to murder a witness due to the improper exclusion of defense witness testimony and prosecutorial misconduct.
• Ketrow v. State
  414 So. 2d 298· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-05-28 ·cited 20×
  Albert Jay Ketrow appeals his grand theft conviction, claiming the trial court erroneously excluded his hearsay testimony about his boss's instructions to take a construction trailer. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Ketrow failed to preserve the issue th
• Lonnie S. Sales v. Harris
  675 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 20×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while a jury instruction impermissibly removed the issue of photo array suggestiveness from the jury, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor's summation did not deny a fair trial.
• Stumes v. Solem
  671 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The dissenting judge holds that the defendant's statements were voluntary and admissible, distinguishing the case from Edwards v. Arizona.
• United States v. McRARY
  665 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 20×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
• United States v. Lipps
  659 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior convictions for impeachment, but this error was harmless as to two counts, and review of a third count was declined under the concurrent sentence doctrine.
• United States v. Kerley
  643 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury instruction on 'willfulness' was inadequate because it failed to inform the jury that willfulness requires a finding of bad purpose or evil motive, which is an essential element of a 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 violation.
• Williams v. State
  400 So. 2d 471· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on applicable penalties, when requested, is reversible error, but certified a question regarding the application of the harmless error doctrine to this omission.
• United States v. Brown
  644 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an in-court voice identification procedure, where the defendant was compelled to speak the robber's words in front of the jury, was unduly suggestive and prejudicial, violating due process.
• United States v. Garcia
  625 F.2d 162· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying discovery of an informant's name, in its conduct of the trial, in its jury instructions, in requiring inmate witnesses to be handcuffed, in refusing a self-defense instruction for weapon conveyance, in its handling of a w
• Barnes v. State
  375 So. 2d 40· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-09-18 ·cited 20×
  Samuel Barnes was convicted of assault, aggravated battery, unlawful firearm possession, and related charges after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed his convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct regarding comments about his silence and defective charging language in
• Ritz v. O'Donnell
  566 F.2d 731· D.C. Cir.· 1977-09-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the union disciplinary proceedings denied the appellant a full and fair hearing, violating federal labor law.
• United States v. Cook
  557 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 20×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of consent injunction documents, which did not admit wrongdoing, was an error under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly for defendant Cook.
• Haggard v. State OF Ala.
  550 F.2d 1019· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a federal habeas corpus petitioner must demonstrate actual prejudice to raise jury composition issues not objected to at trial, and that claims of unfair trial and ineffective assistance of counsel were not supported by the evidence or were harmless.
• United States v. Buschman
  527 F.2d 1082· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 20×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a cautionary instruction regarding hearsay testimony at the time it was admitted, provided the jury receives a complete and correct instruction later and there is no manifest prejudice to the defen
• Williams v. Estelle
  500 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-06 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that compelling a defendant to wear prison garb at trial, despite a request for civilian clothes, violates due process and is not harmless error if the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming.
• Settle v. State
  288 So. 2d 511· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-01-25 ·cited 20×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  Willie Settle appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on penalties for lesser included offenses. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that judges need only instruct on the penalty for the charged o
• Sarzen v. Gaughan
  489 F.2d 1076· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the petitioner was denied due process because he was not afforded timely notice of critical steps in the commitment process, an opportunity to review and object to the data used for his evaluation, and timely assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Norris Goss
  484 F.2d 434· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-31 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial judge's ruling on the voluntariness of the confession lacked the required clarity and that the issue of voluntariness was not properly submitted to the jury under 18 U.S.C. § 3501.
• United States v. Ragano
  476 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-09 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding Rizzo's out-of-court statement, which was not subject to cross-examination, was not harmless error, and that a witness's opinion on the ultimate issue of whether stock was received as payment for services rendered w
• United States v. Alphonso Mosca, Sr.
  475 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the government's conduct regarding a potential witness was regrettable, it did not require reversal because the appellants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from her absence at trial.
• Raysor v. State
  272 So. 2d 867· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-02-12 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The denial of a defendant's statutory right to closing argument, when they offer no testimony except their own, constitutes reversible error, even if the evidence of guilt is strong.
• United States v. Faulkenbery
  472 F.2d 879· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that even if prior convictions were improperly admitted and the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated, these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion, an
• United States v. Davis
  459 F.2d 167· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Miranda warning was adequate, the delay in arraignment did not render the confession inadmissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), and the defendant's admission was sufficiently corroborated. The court also found any Bruton violation to be harmless error.
• United States v. Chason
  451 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-12 ·cited 20×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the mailings were sufficiently integral to the scheme to constitute federal mail fraud, and that the erroneous exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's state of mind was harmless error.
• Wright v. State
  251 So. 2d 890· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-09-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's silence during interrogation was harmless error, and that the owner's testimony on market value and the warrantless sighting of the vehicle were permissible.
• United States v. Guzman
  446 F.2d 1137· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments on the defendant's refusal to answer questions during interrogation, while error, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the substantial evidence of guilt. The court also found that the claim of insufficient evidence was unsupport
• United States v. Matos
  444 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a factual situation creating the possibility of prejudicial jury speculation is sufficient to warrant reversal, even if the speculation did not actually occur.
• United States v. Ornstein
  355 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1966-01-12 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial judge's comments to the prosecutor in the presence of the jury, suggesting that certain elements of the crime had been proven, created an impermissible impression of partisanship and infringed upon the defendant's right to have the jury weigh the evi
• United States v. Sten
  342 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-08 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the admission of a business card and the withholding of certain pre-trial statements did not constitute plain error or reversible error, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. DI Donato
  301 F.2d 383· 2d Cir.· 1962-03-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant waived his right to suppress evidence by failing to file a motion before trial, and that the trial court's jury instructions, while not perfectly explicit, were not prejudicial error.
• Garner v. United States
  277 F.2d 242· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal, and erroneous admission of hearsay evidence was harmless given the strength of other evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions.
• United States v. Tandaric
  152 F.2d 3· 7th Cir.· 1945-11-17 ·cited 20×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the statute prohibiting false representation of U.S. citizenship by an alien is constitutional and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin v. Warden, Comm'r, Ga. Dep't OF Corr.
  932 F.3d 1291· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-31 ·cited 19×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, finding that while the prosecutor's comments violated Al-Amin's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the error did not result in actual prejudice under the Brecht standard due to overwhelming
• Riley v. State
  25 So. 3d 1· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-10-22 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Riley sought relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, arguing that his appellate counsel failed to raise a jury instruction error. The court found that the trial court erred in denying a lesser included offense instruction on simple battery, which constitutes per s
• Myles v. State
  582 So. 2d 71· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-06-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a defendant's right to self-representation can be waived by subsequent conduct, and that a trial court's findings on the reliability of a child victim's hearsay statement were sufficient and properly made.
• United States v. Lang
  904 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) and the resulting Confrontation Clause violation were harmless error because the government's case was strong and the testimony was not essential to the conviction.
• Frazier v. State
  530 So. 2d 986· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-08-22 ·cited 19×
  Johnny Lee Frazier was convicted of DUI manslaughter after driving under the influence and killing a passenger in another vehicle. On appeal, the court affirmed his conviction and sentence, holding that although the jury instruction on statutory presumptions was unconstitutional
• United States v. Singer
  785 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge holds that the government's conduct forced the defendant's chosen counsel to withdraw, constituting demonstrable prejudice that warrants dismissal of the indictment.
• Alston v. Garrison
  720 F.2d 812· 4th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the failure of trial counsel to object to evidence of the defendant's post-arrest silence, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and was not harmless error.
• Trs. OF Sabine Area Carpenters' Health & Welf. Fund v. DON Lightfoot Home Builder, Inc.
  704 F.2d 822· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact, and the court did not err in granting summary judgment on the issue of whether carpenters were employees or independent contractors.
• Ala. Hosp. Ass'n v. Beasley
  702 F.2d 955· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the state's Medicaid reimbursement plan's failure to account for patients receiving an inappropriate level of care was an error requiring reversal and remand, but other alleged errors were harmless.
• United States v. Arthur
  602 F.2d 660· 4th Cir.· 1979-08-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding of intent to injure the bank, the admission of prior trial testimony was not reversible error, and the probation condition was within the court's discretion.
• Porter v. State
  356 So. 2d 1268· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-03-07 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a criminal conviction, holding that it was fundamental error for the trial court to admit testimony that the defendant invoked his right to counsel after being Mirandized. The court found this violated established legal principl