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

• Davis v. State
  342 So. 2d 987· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-02-01 ·cited 17×
  George Davis was convicted of robbery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor's cross-examination of Davis regarding his pre-trial silence after receiving Mira
• W. D. Lawson & Co. & Wash. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Penn Cent. Co. & Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
  456 F.2d 419· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 17×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The Carmack Amendment preempts common law claims for interstate carriage, and Tennessee courts may exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations with local offices for causes of action arising outside the state.
• YIU Fong Cheung v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  418 F.2d 460· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the deportation order must be vacated and the case remanded because the alien was not afforded the procedural safeguards required by regulations, including adequate notice and opportunity to consult counsel, even though he was deportable.
• Youngblood v. State
  206 So. 2d 665· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-02-09 ·cited 17×
  The court held that joint representation of co-defendants by a single appointed attorney violates the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and such denial is not harmless error and is not waived by failure to object at trial.
• Proctor v. State
  97 So. 3d 313· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-09-14 ·cited 16×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Eric Proctor appeals his convictions for uttering forged checks and grand theft after a detective testified that Proctor was the person shown in bank surveillance video cashing stolen checks and that he wrote the forged signatures. The court reversed, holding that the detective's
• Berube v. State
  5 So. 3d 734· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-02-25 ·cited 16×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  Leo Berube was convicted of first-degree murder for strangling a prostitute. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in admitting Williams rule testimony regarding two prior rape victims, though the evidence o
• Williams v. State
  901 So. 2d 899· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-04-20 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Review
  Eugene Williams was convicted of aggravated battery, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously gave a jury instruction on self-defense that was circular and confusing. The instruction improperly negated Williams's self-def
• Simmons v. State
  803 So. 2d 787· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-11-30 ·cited 16×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Terrance Simmons appealed his aggravated assault conviction on three grounds. While the appellate court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence and the prosecutor's comment on his failure to testify, it reversed based on the trial judge's improper comment during rebuttal that valida
• Alton James v. State
  751 So. 2d 682· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-01-28 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  James was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct, claiming juror Anderson failed to disclose that she had two close relative
• Anderson v. State
  711 So. 2d 230· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-05-27 ·cited 16×
  Gary Anderson appeals his cocaine trafficking conviction, challenging the trial court's allowance of a peremptory challenge striking an African-American juror and denial of a mistrial motion based on a witness's comment on his right to remain silent. The appellate court affirmed,
• Mosely v. State
  682 So. 2d 605· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-10-30 ·cited 16×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  The court held that instructing the jury on a nonexistent crime constitutes fundamental error, requiring reversal even if not objected to at trial.
• Melvin v. State
  677 So. 2d 1317· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Standard
  James Melvin appeals his DUI manslaughter conviction and sentence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction but remands for modification of the probation order to delete a drug testing payment requirement, and also addresses two evidentiary issues on appeal.
• Scott v. Singletary
  38 F.3d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1994-11-14 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Review
  Paul William Scott, sentenced to death for a 1978 murder, sought recall of a prior appellate mandate and habeas relief based on the intervening decision in Glock v. Singletary, arguing that his sentencing jury received an inadequate narrowing instruction on Florida's "heinous, at
• United States v. McKINNEY
  954 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that presenting an overt act that occurred after the conspiracy's objective was achieved was not plain error because the jury likely convicted based on other valid overt acts or evidence of the conspiracy. The court also held that evidence of the Aryan Brotherhood'
• Massey v. State
  589 So. 2d 336· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-10-31 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  James Massey appealed his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender, challenging the state's failure to serve written notice of its intent to seek enhancement as required by Florida Statutes § 775.084(3)(b). The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while wri
• United States v. Capote-Capote
  946 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
• Brecht v. Abrahamson
  944 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court concurs in the judgment, finding the standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review is settled law in the circuit.
• Young v. Herring
  917 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The dissent argues that the majority misapplies the 'plain statement' rule from Harris v. Reed, improperly expanding federal habeas review by disregarding an adequate and independent state procedural ground.
• Armstrong v. State
  566 So. 2d 943· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-09-20 ·cited 16×
  Armstrong appealed his second-degree murder conviction and probation revocation, challenging the trial court's failure to give complete jury instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide. The court held that while such omission is fundamental error, it can be waived when def
• United States v. Garcia
  905 F.2d 557· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was a valid border search, his statements were voluntary, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
• United States v. Vizcarra-Porras
  889 F.2d 1435· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity and compel testimony, nor did it err in its evidentiary rulings or find reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument.
• McCLESKEY v. Zant
  890 F.2d 342· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss McCleskey's Massiah claim as an abuse of the writ because he deliberately abandoned the claim in prior federal proceedings.
• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• Gibson v. State
  533 So. 2d 338· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-11-17 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to properly object on that specific ground in the trial court.
• Smith v. Fairman
  862 F.2d 630· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of the victim's prior inconsistent statement was constitutional error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.
• Powell v. United States
  849 F.2d 1576· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by entering sua sponte summary judgment without providing the ten days' notice mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), and this error was not harmless.
• Hall v. Dugger
  531 So. 2d 76· Fla.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 16×
  A trial court's limitation of jury and judicial consideration to statutory mitigating factors, while constituting error under Hitchcock v. Dugger, is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the nonstatutory mitigating evidence presented is weak compared to the aggravating factor
• United States v. Doyle E. Campbell
  845 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court should have excluded testimony of patients not listed in the indictment as it was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove character rather than intent for the charged offenses.
• Mauricio v. Duckworth
  840 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
• Jackson v. Dugger
  837 F.2d 1469· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the petitioner's Miranda rights were not violated regarding his conviction, the jury instruction at the sentencing phase created an unconstitutional presumption of death, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
• DEL Madera Props. v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc.
  820 F.2d 973· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the state law claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment were preempted by federal copyright law, and that the jury instructions and copyright validity were proper.
• United States v. Viera
  819 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded to the district court to develop facts regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct before ruling on the conviction's reversal.
• United States v. Nathan
  816 F.2d 230· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 16×
• Jasper Tisdale v. State
  498 So. 2d 1280· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-10-29 ·cited 16×
  A prior inconsistent statement given at a police station is not admissible as substantive evidence because it does not fall within the hearsay exception in section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which limits admissible statements to those given at trial, hearing, other proceedin
• Perry v. Larson
  794 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of political retaliation, improper evidentiary rulings did not deny a fair trial, and damages were properly calculated.
• von Carter v. State
  478 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The Florida Supreme Court remanded a sentencing case to the district court for reconsideration under the standard established in State v. Young, which requires reversal and resentencing when a departure sentence relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons unless the stat
• Matthews v. Ashland Chem., Inc.
  770 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, and the evidentiary rulings were either correct or harmless.
• United States v. Skandier
  758 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify and the shifting of the burden of proof were improper, they constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Harvey
  756 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a change of venue, limiting voir dire, refusing to disclose the grand jury list, denying a lineup, admitting hypnotically enhanced testimony, or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Webb
  755 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 16×
  Two confessions obtained after the defendant invoked his right to counsel were obtained in violation of Edwards v. Arizona and should have been suppressed.
• Williams v. State
  461 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-12-27 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Richard Williams appeals his convictions for burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. The court affirmed his petit theft conviction and sentence, holding that a prior conviction obtained after the criminal acts but before sentencing could properly aggravate the sentence, but rev
• Merrill Jackson v. State
  453 So. 2d 456· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Merrill Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder in the fatal stabbing of Jake Robinson and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor's comments during voir dire regarding Jackson's
• Hall v. Freese
  735 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the jury's verdict was inconsistent with substantial justice due to the inadequacy of the award and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel, warranting a new trial.
• RAY E. Friedman & Co. v. Jenkins
  738 F.2d 251· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's judgment was correct, affirming the award against the appellant, as any errors were harmless and the appellant's counterclaims and defenses were without merit.
• Hayden McILROY v. Dittmer
  732 F.2d 98· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while some jury instructions may have been imperfect, any errors were harmless because the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims was extremely weak, and the jury likely would have reached the same verdict regardless of the instructions.
• Kampshoff v. Smith
  698 F.2d 581· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 16×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  The court held that the erroneous admission of unreliable eyewitness identification testimony was not harmless error because there was a reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction.
• Dereck Cunningham v. State
  404 So. 2d 759· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-09-08 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Dereck Cunningham appeals his conviction for burglary of a structure. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant's right to remain silent during closing argument and that the trial c
• Dodson v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. & The Fed. Aviation Admin.
  644 F.2d 647· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the NTSB's order denying the airman's medical certificate was supported by substantial evidence and that the relevant regulation was not unconstitutionally vague.
• United States v. Santos
  625 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting coconspirator hearsay evidence because the alleged coconspirator testified and established a prima facie case, and any other hearsay admitted was harmless.
• United States v. Parker
  622 F.2d 298· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' statements in a joint trial can be reversible error if it contributes to a defendant's conviction, but may be harmless error if the defendant's own statement is sufficiently inculpatory. The court also affirmed the validity of th