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

• Passmore v. Estelle
  607 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Ineffective assistance of counsel can be established if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or if a state official knew or should have known of the deficient representation and failed to act.
• United States v. McGILL
  604 F.2d 1252· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that the defendant was released pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, as any error in not submitting the factual component to the jury was harmless.
• Johnson v. Hall
  605 F.2d 577· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, despite factors like his injuries, low intelligence, and lack of Miranda warnings.
• Allison v. Gray
  603 F.2d 633· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the exclusion of alibi evidence under an unconstitutional statute was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States ex rel. James Raymond Moore v. People OF the State OF Ill.
  577 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The admission of testimony regarding the victim's pretrial identification of the defendant was harmless constitutional error because the victim's in-court identification was reliable and based on an independent source, and the failure to provide a transcript of the preliminary he
• Boyd v. Henderson
  555 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-16 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the victim's identification at a pre-indictment arraignment was not a violation of due process or the Sixth Amendment, and any error in admitting the other witness's identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Bodey
  547 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal at the first trial, nor in refusing a second competency examination during the second trial, and that the prosecutor's comment was harmless error.
• United States v. Savell
  546 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the defendant's statements were either voluntarily made and thus admissible, or any error in admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.
• United States ex rel. Edgar Ross v. Fike
  534 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that references to the petitioner's silence at a lineup, when he had been instructed he could remain silent, were not harmless error and thus denied him a trial free from prejudicial inferences.
• In re The Colo. Corp. v. William C. LAM in Bankr. of the Colo. Corp.
  531 F.2d 463· 10th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge abused his discretion in provisionally disallowing the claims of IIT and Venture Fund for voting purposes, as the objector failed to meet the burden of proof and the denial of voting rights could have affected the election outcome.
• United States v. Miller
  529 F.2d 1125· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the nondisclosure of a confession constituted a Brady error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Yates
  524 F.2d 1282· D.C. Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, made while in custody and not denied by the defendant, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Lynnwell Smith v. Estelle
  519 F.2d 1267· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-26 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the admission of Smith's incriminating statements made during police interrogation violated Escobedo, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Carney
  461 F.2d 465· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-31 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated violent acts, even with a curative instruction, constituted reversible error because it was highly prejudicial and could not be considered harmless.
• Naughten v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  476 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court found that any alleged error in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Neverson
  463 F.2d 1224· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of the lineup identification requires a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least remand for findings.
• Zerega v. State
  260 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1972-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court discharged a certiorari petition challenging Zerega's murder conviction, holding that a single hypothetical question regarding silence during a sanity examination constituted harmless error that did not warrant reversal. The court distinguished the case
• United States v. Aaron
  457 F.2d 865· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the unintentional, brief delay in producing a second Jencks Act report was harmless error, as the defense counsel made a tactical decision not to use it for impeachment.
• Patch v. The Stanley Works (Stanley Chem. Co. Division) & Thomas Keller
  448 F.2d 483· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-17 ·cited 14×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court correctly applied New Hampshire law regarding strict liability and the wrongful death damage limitation, and also correctly awarded pre-judgment interest from the date the complaints were filed.
• United States v. Murray
  445 F.2d 1171· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error by limiting cross-examination regarding potential leniency for a witness's associate, as such cross-examination was cumulative and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Levrie
  445 F.2d 429· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice.
• United States v. Hestie
  439 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments during summation, while potentially improper, did not deny the appellant a fair trial and were harmless error.
• Olsen v. Ellsworth
  438 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because the denial of counsel at his preliminary hearing was not retroactive and other alleged errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Binet
  442 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-13 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority misconstrued the facts and misapplied legal precedent regarding the "harmless error" doctrine, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
• United States v. Green
  436 F.2d 290· D.C. Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the precinct identification procedure was potentially suggestive, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the extensive independent evidence and the victim's clear observation during the crime.
• Corcoran v. United States
  427 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that any error in instructing the jury on the presumption of illegal importation was harmless, and that the informer's actions did not constitute entrapment as a matter of law.
• United States v. Blassick
  422 F.2d 652· 7th Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, while improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defense counsel's prior remarks and the court's curative instructions. The court also held that a warrantless search of a locker was permissible under
• United States v. Gregg
  414 F.2d 943· 7th Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while certain identification procedures and confession admissions were constitutionally questionable, they constituted harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Rogers v. United States
  411 F.2d 228· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-20 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that the defendant's assignments of error regarding the use of the terms 'insane' and 'insanity,' improper trial tactics, refusal of a 'missing witness' instruction, and prejudicial references to prior jail stays were without merit.
• United States v. Franke
  409 F.2d 958· 7th Cir.· 1969-04-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of the double jeopardy motion was proper because the original indictment was dismissed on the defendants' motion, and any error in admitting eavesdropped testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Chin KEE v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  407 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1969-02-14 ·cited 14×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while arraignment in Massachusetts may have been a critical stage, the absence of counsel did not cause prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt, thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Almon Boyd Smith v. United States
  385 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-13 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the Dyer Act and that the exclusion of certain testimony regarding the appellant's state of mind was not an abuse of discretion and, in any event, constituted harmless error.
• Ford v. United States
  379 F.2d 123· D.C. Cir.· 1967-05-09 ·cited 14×
• South v. United States
  368 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's income tax returns was prejudicial error because they suggested tax evasion rather than proving the charged offense of illegal gambling promotion.
• Brown v. Tanner
  164 So. 2d 848· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-06-04 ·cited 14×
  In this motor vehicle negligence case, the court addressed whether a deposition of Henry Brown (originally taken when he was only a witness) could be admitted against newly-joined defendants Brown, Setzer's Warehouse, and Food Fair Stores. Although the court found that the trial
• Emmett Clarke Blake v. State
  156 So. 2d 511· Fla.· 1963-09-27 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  The evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction under the Florida statute allowing proof of murder in the perpetration of robbery as an alternative to proving premeditation; the defendant's confession was properly admitted with corpus delicti adequately es
• United States v. Certain Land IN the City OF Paterson
  322 F.2d 866· 3d Cir.· 1963-09-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a mortgagor remains liable for interest on the mortgage debt even after surrender of possession in a condemnation proceeding, and that the mortgagee's application for payment does not automatically stop the accrual of interest against the mortgagor.
• Snead v. United States
  217 F.2d 912· 4th Cir.· 1954-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that admitting evidence of an individual's bad reputation to prove they committed a crime in a civil forfeiture case constitutes reversible error.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns
  207 F.2d 434· 8th Cir.· 1953-10-29 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court held that the exclusion of competent and material evidence offered by the respondents constituted a denial of due process, requiring denial of the Board's petition for enforcement.
• Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Zane
  160 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1947-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that giving an instruction on constructive fraud without requiring rescission and restitution was reversible error, as it conflicted with the trial theory of actual fraud and prevented a determination of harmless error.
• Piper v. Landstreet
  106 Fla. 688· Fla.· 1932-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, finding that while some technical errors occurred during the trial, they were harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• Wood v. State
  98 Fla. 703· Fla.· 1929-10-18 ·cited 14×
  Wood and Rhoden were convicted of armed robbery under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, holding that the 1927 robbery statute was unconstitutional due to improper legislative procedure, that the indictment sufficiently described the property despit
• McQuagge v. State
  80 Fla. 768· Fla.· 1920-11-30 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Rule
  D. R. McQuagge was convicted of issuing a bad check in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any technical errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were not prejudicial given the clear evidence of gui
• Barker v. The State of Flor'da
  76 Fla. 164· Fla.· 1918-08-02 ·cited 14×
  Milton Barker, Charlotte Barker, and Silas Oats were convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. On writ of error, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the indictment legally sufficient and rejecting challenges that it was vague or embarrassing to the d
• Neal v. State
  132 So. 3d 949· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-02-21 ·cited 13×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard when evaluating the defendant's request to proceed without counsel.
• Martin v. State
  110 So. 3d 936· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-02-22 ·cited 13×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Wayne Martin was convicted by jury of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and sentenced to a mandatory 20-year minimum term. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by excluding testimony and refusin
• Ariella Rubinger v. State
  98 So. 3d 659· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-09-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that evidence of a defendant's behavior after an accident is not relevant to proving reckless driving at the time of the accident and its admission was not harmless error.
• Carter v. State
  705 So. 2d 582· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-18 ·cited 13×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  A sentencing scoresheet error is not harmless if the record does not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would have imposed the same sentence with a corrected scoresheet.
• Martinez v. Ylst
  951 F.2d 1153· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 13×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state waived its right to argue that the trial court's error was not cognizable on federal habeas corpus, and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Gaddy
  894 F.2d 1307· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that Danner's statements were admissible because his aunt, acting as a private citizen, initiated contact, and his waiver of rights was knowing and intelligent. Gaddy's mistrial motion was denied as any error was harmless.