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

• Erester Markque Ashford v. State
  407 So. 3d 537· Fla. 5th DCA· 2025-03-07 ·cited 14×
  Erester Markque Ashford was convicted of attempted carjacking, burglary of a conveyance, and assault, and sentenced to fifteen years in prison after being designated a prison releasee reoffender. Ashford appealed arguing that under the recent Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v.
• Shou Demar Williams v. State
  901 So. 2d 357· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-05-06 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  Shou Demar Williams was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child, but the trial court violated judicial neutrality by prompting the prosecution to amend Count I from digital penetration to penile penetration. The court affirmed Count II but reversed Count I because th
• Cruz v. State
  884 So. 2d 105· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  A resentencing hearing is necessary when a scoresheet error is corrected, even if the original sentence would be legal under the corrected scoresheet.
• Torres v. State
  853 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-06-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the admission of hearsay testimony was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the circumstances.
• Bonine v. State
  811 So. 2d 863· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-28 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Bonine was convicted of DUI/manslaughter after striking and killing a motorcyclist. The trial court erred by instructing the jury on a legally inadequate statutory presumption of impairment under section 316.1934, and the appellate court held this legal error required reversal de
• Wolcott v. State
  774 So. 2d 954· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-01-12 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Ricky Wolcott appeals his convictions for burglary, theft, and dealing in stolen property. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses all convictions, finding that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of Wolcott's prior arrest record, denigrated defense counsel
• Johnson v. State
  730 So. 2d 368· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the denial of the motion to suppress the secretly recorded conversation and firearm.
• Major Thornton v. State
  683 So. 2d 515· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-06-12 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Major Thornton appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for resentencing after pleading no contest to two counts of leaving the scene of an accident with injury or death. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to make his sentences concurrent but reversed in part be
• Terrell v. State
  668 So. 2d 656· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-02-21 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Michael Terrell appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging sentencing scoresheet calculations that he claimed resulted in a sentence that was not actually a downward departure as the trial court believed. The court reversed and remanded, finding
• Jones v. State
  650 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-02-22 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Gerald Jones appeals two criminal convictions, challenging whether the trial court properly complied with Faretta requirements before allowing him to represent himself pro se. The court reverses and remands both cases for new trials because the trial court failed to obtain a clea
• Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State
  648 So. 2d 683· Fla.· 1994-11-23 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  Warfield Wike appeals his death sentence imposed after resentencing, challenging the trial judge's denial of his right to present final closing argument in the penalty phase. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Rule 3.780(c) mandates that a defendant in a capital case always has
• Holland v. State
  636 So. 2d 1289· Fla.· 1994-03-24 ·cited 14×
  Albert Holland was convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer, armed robbery, sexual battery, and attempted first-degree murder, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and sentences because a contract jail psychiatrist's testimony abo
• United States v. Hill
  953 F.2d 452· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior cocaine use was reversible error because it constituted inadmissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Johnson
  927 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that while the district court erroneously admitted a co-conspirator's statement, the error was harmless because other substantial evidence proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Pallais
  921 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury exposure, conspiracy charges, co-conspirator statements, evidence admissibility, or prosecutorial comments.
• Ferrier v. Duckworth
  902 F.2d 545· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The admission of a witness's statement under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, and the introduction of irrelevant photographs, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
• United States v. Dawes
  874 F.2d 746· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court's failure to fully admonish pro se defendants regarding the dangers of self-representation was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no reasonable possibility the defendants would have been acquitted had they been repres
• Larry Ray & Linda Hanson v. Parkside Surgery Ctr.
  872 F.2d 745· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error by submitting the case to an eight-member jury, nor did it abuse its discretion on the other claims of error raised by the plaintiff.
• Lange v. Young
  869 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that Wisconsin's limitation on the attorney-client privilege, allowing a psychiatrist retained by the defense to testify for the prosecution, does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that any evidentiary errors were harmless.
• United States v. Howard
  867 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the defendant's perjury trap claim, which challenges the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, is not effectively unreviewable after trial and thus not subject to immediate appeal.
• Rangel Hernandez v. State
  547 So. 2d 138· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×
  Rangel Hernandez appeals his second-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of hearsay testimony from Detective Fleming and Helen Fernandez. The Florida appellate court affirms the conviction, finding any hearsay errors harmless.
• Herbert v. State
  526 So. 2d 709· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Rose Herbert was convicted of aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment for striking her 7-year-old son with a belt after he took money from her. The Fourth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the evidence insufficient to prove malicious punishment and ho
• United States v. Fernandez
  829 F.2d 363· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of a cooperation agreement, even if erroneous, was harmless error, and that the trial in absentia and admission of a firearm were proper.
• King v. Lynaugh
  828 F.2d 257· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-14 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
• United States v. Gordon
  812 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a battered wife's statements and Miranda waivers were voluntary, and that the codefendant's trial errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Stackpole
  811 F.2d 689· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the convictions of Donald Stackpole and Ray Norton, Jr. for their involvement in an arson conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during their trials.
• Vern Leslie Herd v. Kincheloe
  800 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that both the Sandstrom jury instruction error and the Bruton error were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence of guilt.
• Merlo v. Bolden
  801 F.2d 252· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
• Burger v. Kemp
  785 F.2d 890· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent was constitutionally infirm, the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly proved intent and the defendant did not affirmatively raise intent as an issue.
• Smith v. State
  476 So. 2d 748· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-10-08 ·cited 14×
  Florida appellate court reversed defendant's conviction due to trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry regarding the State's discovery violations, holding such failure is per se reversible error even if harmless, and certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
• United States v. Hartigan
  768 F.2d 161· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of a defense witness violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, and this error was not harmless.
• Morgan v. State
  471 So. 2d 1336· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-06-25 ·cited 14×
  Violations of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, requiring notice to counsel before responding to jury requests for additional instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis rather than constituting per se reversible error. When the trial court, with agreement of bot
• United States v. LeAMOUS
  754 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-14 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the complainant's sexual relationship with the defendant, denying a writ for a witness, or admitting rebuttal evidence.
• Redding v. Benson
  739 F.2d 1360· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that value was a material element of attempted theft by deception was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Horvath
  731 F.2d 557· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the admission of evidence concerning a marijuana seizure at Ardmore, Oklahoma was improper, it constituted harmless error, and the admission of attorney-client communications made in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy was also proper.
• United States v. Morrow
  731 F.2d 233· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence seized from the apartment, incriminating statements made by the defendant, and polygraph results were admissible at trial.
• United States v. Gagnon
  721 F.2d 672· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error of examining a juror without all defendants present did not contribute to the verdicts.
• Barnett v. State
  444 So. 2d 967· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-02 ·cited 14×
  A criminal discovery deposition may not be admitted as substantive evidence under the "former testimony" hearsay exception when the witness is unavailable or unable to remember, because Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.220(d) limits the use of discovery depositions sole
• Hargrove v. State
  431 So. 2d 732· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-05-25 ·cited 14×
  David Hargrove appealed his cocaine delivery conviction, challenging prosecutorial questioning that suggested his statement 'I don't mess with the stuff' was a phrase commonly used by drug dealers to deflect suspicion. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction b
• United States v. Emery
  682 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial.
• Hartman v. Opelika Mach. & Welding Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  414 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-05-28 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  In this products liability case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict on strict liability, holding that a manufacturer remains subject to strict liability even when producing a product for a single purchaser using that purchaser's design specifications
• United States v. Dumas
  658 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror, limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of an extraneous offense, or in its jury instructions on entrapment, and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Allen v. Franzen
  659 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissent argues that under Jenkins v. Anderson, the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's pre-arrest silence, and even post-Miranda silence, constitute harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Gilbert v. Sowders
  646 F.2d 1146· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal was arbitrary and capricious, constituting a denial of due process.
• Solomon v. Smith
  645 F.2d 1179· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and did not violate due process, and therefore habeas corpus relief was not warranted.
• Marshall v. State
  393 So. 2d 584· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-01-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the State improperly elicited testimony regarding the defendant's post-arrest silence, which violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Bumpus v. Gunter
  635 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that while some jury instructions were imperfect, they did not rise to the level of constitutional error that would deprive the petitioner of due process or the right to be convicted only under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found n
• Scott v. Louie L. Wainwright
  617 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-14 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Fifth Circuit held that the Florida court erroneously denied the petitioner his constitutional right to self-representation, as the circuit recognized this right prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta v. California.
• United States v. Molt
  615 F.2d 141· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence obtained from a prior illegal search, while potentially tainted, was harmless error for the Section 545 conviction due to overwhelming untainted evidence. However, the conspiracy conviction under Section 371 was reversed due to insufficient evidence t