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. Leadell Walton
  538 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions in a joint trial was not reversible error, as the government's independent case was strong and the confessions were cumulative, rendering any error harmless. The court also found the warrantless search of an automobile
• Lomax v. State
  322 So. 2d 650· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-11-19 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The failure to give a requested instruction on an immediately lesser included offense may be harmless error if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt for the greater crime and no rational basis for the jury to find only the lesser crime was committed.
• Hoover v. Beto
  439 F.2d 913· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained through an invalid search warrant and the admission of hearsay testimony implicating the defendant violated his constitutional rights.
• Wilson v. United States
  391 F.2d 460· D.C. Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 19×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a defendant's amnesia does not automatically negate competency or responsibility, provided the evidence clearly establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Leighton v. The ONE William St. Fund, Inc.
  343 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that requiring a stockholder to post security for costs in a derivative suit was reasonable, and the denial of various injunctive relief and a receiver appointment was proper, with any failure to make specific findings of fact being harmless error.
• Goddard v. United States
  131 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1942-11-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in broadly applying the attorney-client privilege, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• Cozzie v. State
  225 So. 3d 717· Fla.· 2017-05-11 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death, rejecting his claims of error regarding jury selection, expert testimony, sentencing aggravators, penalty phase evidence, and the constitutionality of Florida's capital sent
• Terence Tobias Oliver v. State
  214 So. 3d 606· Fla.· 2017-04-06 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences for two counts of first-degree murder. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a shotgun, that the prosecutor's comment on lack of remorse did not warrant a m
• Whitney v. Manos Milien & Esurance Ins. Co.
  125 So. 3d 817· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-03-20 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Wendy Whitney, a defendant in a motor vehicle accident case, appeals the denial of her motion for new trial and/or remittitur after a jury verdict awarding substantial damages to the plaintiff, a rear-seat passenger rendered quadriplegic by the collision. The appellate court affi
• Mandri v. State
  813 So. 2d 65· Fla.· 2002-02-28 ·cited 18×
  A trial court's failure to initially file written reasons for a departure sentence is subject to harmless error analysis, even if reasons are later provided in response to a Rule 3.800(b) motion.
• Rubin Otero v. State
  754 So. 2d 765· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-03-08 ·cited 18×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Rubin Otero was convicted of burglary with assault, robbery, grand theft of a vehicle, false imprisonment, and abuse of an aged or disabled person following a jury trial. On appeal, Otero challenged prosecutorial comments during closing argument about his failure to corroborate h
• Blasco v. State
  680 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-09-25 ·cited 18×
  When stenographic notes of critical rebuttal testimony are lost and the trial court's reconstruction of the record is insufficient to resolve disputes about what transpired, a defendant is entitled to a new trial because the appellate court cannot determine whether any reversible
• Singleton v. State
  620 So. 2d 1038· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-06-04 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Edward Singleton appealed his sentencing for sexual battery and lewd acts on children, challenging the trial court's assignment of victim injury points under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the victims did not suffer actua
• United States v. Lambert
  984 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-16 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  A district court must consider each successive criminal history category when departing upward from the guidelines sentence, even for defendants in high criminal history categories, and must provide adequate reasons for the departure.
• United States v. Paslay
  971 F.2d 667· 11th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Eleventh Circuit vacated the appellant's sentence on two counts and remanded for resentencing. The court found that the district court improperly relied on the "victimization" of accomplices as a basis for an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the
• United States v. Hagmann
  950 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the ex parte communication, jury instructions, indictment's sufficiency, or the imposed fine.
• Johnson v. State
  583 So. 2d 386· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-07-23 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  William Johnson appealed his five-and-one-half-year sentence for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's failure to require corroborating evidence when he disputed a prior grand larceny conviction used in calculating his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The First District C
• United States v. Winfred Payne
  923 F.2d 595· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession was a Bruton violation but harmless error, and that denial of severance and dual representation were not abuses of discretion. The denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was also affirmed.
• McGUIRE v. Estelle
  902 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 18×
  The admission of irrelevant, highly prejudicial evidence of prior injuries, coupled with an improper jury instruction that allowed the jury to use this evidence to directly determine guilt, violated the defendant's due process rights.
• Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  892 F.2d 58· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 18×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that any error in admitting unanswered interrogatories was harmless. The court also found the appeal to be frivolous and awarded attorney's fees.
• United States v. Kornegay
  885 F.2d 713· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the introduction of inadmissible evidence, even with a curative instruction, was not harmless error when willfully introduced by the prosecution.
• United States v. Stewart
  872 F.2d 957· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the mail and wire fraud statutes were not unconstitutionally vague, the indictment sufficiently alleged an offense, and the trial court properly refused jury instructions regarding intangible rights, common law fraud, and antitrust
• United States v. Eccles
  850 F.2d 1357· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendant's interlocutory appeal from the denial of her motions, and affirmed the district court's partial suppression of statements due to psychological coercion.
• United States v. Green
  847 F.2d 622· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 18×
  A notice of appeal filed after a conditional guilty plea but before sentencing is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction if the intent to appeal is clear and neither party is prejudiced.
• United States v. Gordon
  829 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
• Thornes v. State
  485 So. 2d 1357· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-01 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Christopher Thornes was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial judge committed reversible error by excluding critical defense evidence: the prior inconsistent statemen
• United States v. Murray
  784 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the mention of a polygraph examination and errors in the jury charge constituted reversible error.
• Holland v. Attorney General of New Jersey
  777 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The admission of a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant, even if deemed harmless error by state courts, violates the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and requires reversal unless the prosecution proves harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gregorio C. Perez, Jr.
  776 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that amending an indictment to correct a defendant's name is permissible if it does not charge a different offense or prejudice the defendant, and that travel through international waters between two points subject to U.S. jurisdiction can constitute importation.
• Anderson v. Smith
  751 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 18×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's videotaped confession, obtained after he invoked his right to remain silent, violated Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Ferrera
  746 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and most of the defendant's challenges to the conviction and restitution order were without merit, except for the $18,000 loan which was not sufficiently proven to be caused by the offense.
• United States v. Haskins
  737 F.2d 844· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were not subject to reversible error, affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Packer
  730 F.2d 1151· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant, statements made during a subsequent interrogation with counsel present were admissible, and the trial was timely under the Speedy Trial Act.
• Miller v. State
  444 So. 2d 523· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-01-20 ·cited 18×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Steve Miller appealed the trial court's order revoking his probation based on three alleged violations. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the finding regarding failure to file monthly reports but reversed the findings on two criminal charges (theft and fraud) because th
• United States v. Punch
  709 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the elements of the charges, specifically the knowledge requirement, constituted an "entire failure" to address a core concern of Rule 11, requiring automatic reversal.
• United States v. Ackerman
  704 F.2d 1344· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the materiality of a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 542 is a legal question for the court, not the jury, and that any error in admitting pre-Miranda statements was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Harris
  703 F.2d 508· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 18×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant appearing in clearly identifiable prison garb during voir dire, without a contemporaneous objection, is not harmless error if the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming, as it violates the presumption of innocence.
• United States v. Kahan & Lessin Co. & Landstrom Distribs., Inc.
  695 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 18×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that inadvertent intrusions into grand jury proceedings, evidentiary errors, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment or reversal of the conviction, as they were either nonprejudicial, harmless, or cured by instructions.
• United States v. Nicodemo Scarfo
  685 F.2d 842· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of illegally obtained evidence, specifically a telephone list, could have influenced the jury's verdict and was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Amadio Petito
  671 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-26 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to preindictment notice that refusal to testify after a grant of immunity could lead to criminal contempt charges, and that failure to produce surveillance photos post-trial does not warrant a new trial if they are not material to t
• United States v. Apodaca
  666 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of jury selection non-compliance and that any errors in admitting summary testimony or prosecutorial remarks were harmless.
• Causey Harrell v. State
  405 So. 2d 480· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 18×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Causey Harrell was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his former wife after claiming the shooting was accidental. On appeal, Harrell challenged the trial court's failure to remove six guns from the courtroom before the jury entered, arguing their presence prejudiced the ju
• United States v. Hastings
  660 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendants' failure to deny the charges constituted reversible error, violating their Fifth Amendment rights.
• Bradford Glenn McDONNOUGH v. State
  402 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-07-29 ·cited 18×
  Bradford McDonnough was convicted of aggravated battery and robbery after trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the state's violation of discovery rules by not listing a rebuttal witness on its witness
• Williams v. State
  399 So. 2d 999· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-05-19 ·cited 18×
  Robert Williams appealed his conviction, arguing the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) by failing to instruct the jury on maximum and minimum sentences for the offenses charged, as mandated by the Supreme Court's decision in Tascano v. State. The co
• United States v. Yukio Uramoto
  638 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding prior threats made by the witness, as this limitation impermissibly denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.
• United States v. Armored Transp., Inc.
  629 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-07 ·cited 18×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  A federal grand jury's service for purposes of Rule 6(g) commences on the date it is impaneled and sworn, not when it is authorized to begin serving. However, a conviction will be affirmed if the charges are not infamous crimes, allowing prosecution by information even if the ind
• Williams v. Martin
  618 F.2d 1021· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 18×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge was not at fault for the due process violation, but rather ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause.
• Hammontree v. Phelps
  605 F.2d 1371· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Louisiana statute creating a presumption of negligence from the violation of a statute is unconstitutional as applied, violating due process by shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
• Zamot v. State
  375 So. 2d 881· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-10-16 ·cited 18×
  Felix Zamot appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of his confession, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and the prosecutor's inflammatory closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the prosecutor's argument impr