Harmless Error Doctrine

1,384 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

• Thompson v. State
  386 So. 2d 264· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-04-08 ·cited 16×
  Thompson was convicted of involuntary sexual battery, false imprisonment, and unlawful possession of a weapon following a sexual assault in a park. The court reversed his convictions because the prosecutor improperly commented during opening statements on Thompson's invocation of
• United States ex rel. Melvin Lee Smith v. Rowe
  618 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 16×
  A prosecutor's comments during closing arguments that draw attention to a defendant's pretrial silence regarding an alibi defense constitute constitutional error, violating due process and the privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Jensen
  608 F.2d 1349· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the defendant's fraudulent scheme involving investment contracts constituted fraud in the sale of securities under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that collateral estoppel and discovery errors did not warrant reversal.
• GUY v. The United States
  608 F.2d 867· Ct. Cl.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while a missing favorable OER constituted legal error, it was harmless for the 1972 promotion selection board but not for the 1973 board, entitling the plaintiff to relief for the latter.
• LaROCHE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  599 F.2d 722· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's error in conducting an admissibility hearing in the jury's presence was not harmless.
• United States v. Vines
  580 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a supplemental jury instruction on flight, in admitting the testimony of co-defendants, or in finding the indictment and evidence sufficient.
• United States v. Well
  572 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the Jencks Act does not require a defendant to show prejudice when the government fails to produce discoverable statements, and suppression of testimony is an appropriate sanction for such failure.
• United States v. Pope
  574 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-06 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial judge was not bound by the mandatory remedies of the Jencks Act when the government's failure to disclose a witness statement was an oversight, and the judge's decision to allow further cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• Abreau v. State
  347 So. 2d 819· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-06 ·cited 16×
  Jesus Abreau was convicted of assault with intent to commit first degree murder, but the appellate court reversed because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault. The court held that assault is necessarily included
• United States v. Anton
  547 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that misdelivered mail remains 'in the mail' even after lawful removal from a receptacle, and a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the exact location of the theft is harmless if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Crowley
  529 F.2d 1066· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of counsel at a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• Davis v. Hagin
  330 So. 2d 42· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-01-16 ·cited 16×
  A trial court acts within its discretion in setting trial fewer than 30 days after notice of hearing when the defendant fails to timely object to the violation of Rule 1.440(c), and no substantial prejudice results from the technical violation.
• United States v. Busard
  524 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-05 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the admission of evidence concerning a prior arrest was harmless error, and the seized cocaine was properly admitted.
• United States ex rel. Leon Wash. v. Vincent
  525 F.2d 262· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-05 ·cited 16×
  A conviction obtained through a prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony, even if the defense had reason to suspect it and failed to act, violates due process if the false testimony could have affected the jury's judgment.
• United States v. Burrell
  505 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of an investigatory report was harmless error and that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's findings of willful intent to evade taxes.
• Powell v. Stone
  507 F.2d 93· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that evidence obtained from an arrest under an unconstitutional vagrancy ordinance must be excluded, and its admission in a murder trial was not harmless error.
• Phillips v. United States
  502 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge would hold that an implicit acquittal from a conviction on a lesser included offense cannot serve as the basis for collateral estoppel, and even if it could, it should not restrict proof on retrial of the lesser charge.
• United States v. Young
  472 F.2d 628· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The denial of a transcript to an indigent defendant was not error because adequate alternatives were available, and any potential error was harmless.
• Douglas Equip., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
  471 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit portions of a third-party complaint and answers to interrogatories as admissions, nor in admitting maintenance records and manuals.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Clapper's Mfg., Inc.
  458 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the employer committed unfair labor practices by interfering with employee rights and dominating a labor organization, and that procedural errors in affidavit review were harmless.
• Miller v. State
  246 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-04-06 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the absence of counsel at a preliminary hearing, if not raised at trial, is waived unless it constitutes fundamental error, and in this case, any error was harmless.
• Robertson v. State
  245 So. 2d 304· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-03-09 ·cited 16×
  Charles Robertson and Frank Cilinceon were convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit bribery and sentenced to fifteen months. On appeal, they challenged various trial errors including speedy trial violations, improper witness examination, prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire
• United States v. Sutt
  415 F.2d 1305· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence, and that any constitutional error regarding the admission of statements was harmless.
• Cockrell v. Oberhauser
  413 F.2d 256· 9th Cir.· 1969-06-06 ·cited 16×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of a codefendant's confession implicating Leroy, and Leroy's silence in response, violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bruton rule does not apply to bench trials, so Ivy's confrontation claim fa
• United States v. Burt Ronzy Beard
  381 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1967-07-25 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding evidence found in the defendant's automobile, even if the initial observation was made during an illegal search, was not reversible error because the evidence was not introduced and the observation was made in plain view. T
• Chandler v. United States
  372 F.2d 276· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-17 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the government's amendment to the Declaration of Taking, eliminating an unlawful royalty reservation, was permissible, and that the commission's report was valid despite the lack of formal instructions, as the proceedings met the requirements of Merz and Rule
• Williams v. Rawlings Truck Line, Inc.
  357 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-30 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the District Court erred in directing a verdict for Goldberger, as New York law, specifically its estoppel doctrine, should apply to determine ownership and potential liability.
• Martin v. United States
  335 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1964-08-19 ·cited 16×
  An indictment regular on its face, returned by a legally constituted grand jury, is presumed to be founded on competent evidence, and a defendant's showing of lack of evidence before the grand jury is insufficient to overcome this presumption. The court also found that the jury w
• Maizie Boling Edgar v. Finley
  312 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in sustaining objections to interrogatories seeking witness information and abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• Willis v. United States
  271 F.2d 477· D.C. Cir.· 1959-09-24 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, would reverse the convictions due to issues with suppression of evidence, consolidation of indictments, and denial of a speedy trial.
• United States v. Negro
  164 F.2d 168· 2d Cir.· 1947-11-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a variance between an alleged overt act and a proved overt act is not a fatal defect in a conspiracy charge, and that the failure to object to a jury instruction at trial waives the right to raise the issue on appeal unless it is egregious.
• Riggins v. State
  78 Fla. 459· Fla.· 1919-11-18 ·cited 16×
  Eddie Riggins was convicted of murder in the second degree for shooting and killing Eva White with a shotgun, though the indictment alleged murder in the first degree with intent to kill Stella Riggins. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that an indictment
• Kyree Luis Perez v. State
  187 So. 3d 1279· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-04-12 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Kyree Luis Perez was convicted of attempted second-degree murder for shooting his former friend Michael Coley in the abdomen during a heated verbal confrontation that escalated when Coley challenged him to a fight. Perez appealed, arguing the evidence showed only an impulsive ove
• Valley v. State
  860 So. 2d 464· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-10-29 ·cited 15×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Darryl Valley was convicted of strong-arm robbery and burglary with assault based on fingerprint evidence and collateral crime evidence. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony regarding
• Cataract Surgery Ctr. v. Health Care Cost Containment Bd.
  581 So. 2d 1359· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-06 ·cited 15×
  Freestanding ambulatory surgery centers challenged the Health Care Cost Containment Board's (HCCCB) proposed data collection rules as exceeding the agency's statutory authority and for deficient economic impact analysis. The court reversed the hearing officer's decision, finding
• United States v. Primitivo Cortez
  935 F.2d 135· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, that the Allen charge was properly given, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. However, it found that admitting officers' opinion testimony on a witness's truthfulness
• United States v. Wolf
  879 F.2d 1320· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 15×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court's majority opinion, by proceeding to judgment without further fact-finding, has significantly expanded the rule of Arizona v. Roberson beyond its factual basis.
• Stallworth v. State
  538 So. 2d 1296· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-10 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Kenneth Stallworth appeals convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the sale of a stolen television set. The court reversed the grand theft conviction while affirming the dealing in stolen property conviction, holding that Florida law prohibits dual
• United States v. Ruz-Salazar
  764 F.2d 1433· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, while a constitutional violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Velarde v. Shulsen
  757 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 15×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that prosecutorial cross-examination and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, when not used for impeachment of prior inconsistent statements, violates due process and is not harmless error in a case hinging on the defendant's credibility.
• Wiggins v. Estelle
  681 F.2d 266· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Rule
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation can be violated by the unsolicited and overzealous participation of court-appointed standby counsel, even if the right to self-representation was initially granted.
• Krische v. Smith
  662 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-04 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state trial judge's ex parte communication with the jury, instructing them to continue deliberations without notice to the defendant or counsel, constituted a violation of the defendant's due process right to be present, and this error was not harmless.
• Austin v. State
  406 So. 2d 1128· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-07-29 ·cited 15×
  A clear and specific request for a jury instruction on maximum and minimum penalties, stating the legal basis, preserves the issue for appeal even without a separate formal objection to the court's rejection of the instruction.
• United States v. Groff
  643 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the convictions, affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Allen v. Rowe
  591 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 15×
  A prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument comments on a defendant's silence during police custody, even before Miranda warnings, violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and are not harmless error.
• United States v. Long
  533 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-05 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not err in quashing the subpoena for the government informant, nor in its jury instructions or comments regarding the informant's absence.
• Loftis v. Estelle
  515 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 15×
  The court should remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Bailey
  505 F.2d 417· D.C. Cir.· 1974-10-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that while mentioning prior offenses in the opening statement and making preliminary admissibility rulings without a proffer were errors, they did not warrant reversal given the overwhelming evidence and the invalidity of the defenses raised.
• Loftis v. Beto
  450 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-08 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if the co-defendant's guilty plea before the jury violated the petitioner's confrontation rights, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• In re the Adoption of Mary Ester Johnson
  157 Fla. 25· Fla.· 1946-02-01 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a final adoption decree despite procedural irregularities in the adoption proceedings, holding that where statutory formalities relating to the exercise of jurisdiction are breached but cause no demonstrable harm, such violations constitute harm