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

• Richardson v. State
  488 So. 2d 661· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-05-21 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Edward Richardson was convicted by jury of trafficking in cocaine, delivery of cocaine, and possession of marijuana. The appellate court affirmed the trafficking and delivery convictions, but reversed the marijuana possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, and remanded
• Mrs. Wanda Selman Branch v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  783 F.2d 1289· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the admission and comment on settlement evidence was error, it was harmless due to the indemnity ruling and settlement terms. The indemnity agreement was enforceable for strict liability claims under Louisiana law at the time of the accident.
• State v. MacIas
  481 So. 2d 979· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-01-22 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The State petitioned for certiorari review of a circuit court decision that reversed a DUI conviction and granted a new trial, arguing that the trial court's direction for the defendant to speak and perform sobriety tests did not violate her Fifth Amendment privilege against self
• United States v. Allen C. Lawson (84-3798)
  780 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury convictions, holding that the electronic surveillance was lawfully authorized and properly minimized, cross-examination was not improperly limited, telephone records were admissible, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, preindictment delay did n
• Travieso v. State
  480 So. 2d 100· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 12×
  Victor Travieso and Manuel Esteban Perez were convicted of trafficking in cannabis in excess of 100 pounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Travieso's conviction due to prosecutorial error (comment on the right to remain silent) and lack of standing ruling, but affir
• Adamson v. Ricketts
  758 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of certain hearsay statements was a Confrontation Clause violation but harmless error, and that Arizona's death penalty statute is constitutional as applied.
• Art Crawford, Jr. v. State
  473 So. 2d 700· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-03-27 ·cited 12×
  Crawford was convicted of sexual battery and robbery, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because a police officer improperly commented on Crawford's exercise of his right to remain silent during questioning. The court certified a questio
• Pupillo v. United States
  755 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act's definition of 'responsibly connected' establishes a per se rule, meaning an individual is subject to sanctions if they held certain corporate positions with a violator, regardless of their actual control or fault.
• Lazarus C. Finney v. Rothgerber
  751 F.2d 858· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a defendant's voluntary absence from trial constitutes a waiver of the right to be present, and that while a "no adverse inference" instruction is required in the enhancement phase of a persistent felony offender trial, the failure to give it in this case was
• State v. Jones
  461 So. 2d 97· Fla.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 12×
  Florida Supreme Court held that a store employee's detention of a suspected shoplifter does not constitute state action triggering Fifth Amendment protections, thus allowing testimony about the suspect's silence during pre-arrest questioning. The court rejected the Third District
• United States v. Hall
  724 F.2d 1055· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-28 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge would not reach the admissibility of the initial oral confession because the district court abused its discretion by accepting a conditional guilty plea.
• United States v. Badolato
  710 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search of the suitcase was lawful, extrinsic evidence was admissible, post-arrest statements were admissible, Massiah did not apply, the verdict was not coerced, and a motion to interview jurors was properly denied.
• United States v. Harland L. Radue
  707 F.2d 493· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the magistrate did not err in refusing to hold evidentiary hearings on the appellant's claims of pre-indictment delay and improper use of IRS summonses, and that the blanket assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was not justifiable.
• Tikalsky v. City OF Chicago
  687 F.2d 175· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 12×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the reversal of a case that had minimal impact on the jury's deliberations and was not a basis for the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Ira T. Smith
  692 F.2d 658· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that aggregating the value of stolen goods to meet the $5000 jurisdictional amount is permissible, and the trial court's refusal to give a specific jury instruction regarding addict informant testimony was not prejudicial error in this case.
• Topley v. State
  416 So. 2d 1158· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-06-09 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Donald Topley appeals his conviction for burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief on two grounds: that he was tried in jail clothing and that the prosecutor's closing remarks warranted mistrial. The court found the prosecutor's conduct harmless but remanded on the jail clothi
• Bickerstaff v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  676 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the standard of care were not erroneous, and the exclusion of evidence of a subsequent warning, even if error, was harmless.
• United States v. Bruscino
  662 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-20 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that extraneous material exposed to the jury did not prejudice the appellants' case.
• Weir v. Fletcher
  658 F.2d 1126· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of due process protection for post-arrest silence, absent Miranda warnings, is contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Livingston
  661 F.2d 239· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-20 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Standard
  A prior inconsistent statement made to a postal inspector, even if sworn, does not qualify as substantive evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) because it was not made in a "trial, hearing, or other proceeding."
• Franklin v. State
  403 So. 2d 975· Fla.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 12×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  Franklin was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the shooting death of a liquor store owner. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the underlying felony (robbery) in a felony-murd
• Cuciak v. State
  394 So. 2d 500· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-02-18 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Standard
  In this probation revocation appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that defendants have a right to discovery under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.220 in violation of probation proceedings, but decline to apply the per se reversal rule from Richardson v. Sta
• Tagupa v. Bd. OF Directors
  633 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 must demonstrate they applied for the job as a substantive element of their claim. Failure to do so warrants summary judgment.
• United States v. Hans Wright Bohlmann
  625 F.2d 751· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction on intent, while disapproved, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and affirmed the conviction.
• Thornton Lee Handley v. Pitts
  623 F.2d 23· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-24 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
• Harris v. State
  381 So. 2d 260· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-02-13 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Eddie James Harris was convicted of attempted burglary but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial after two prosecution witnesses made improper comments about Harris remaining silent following his Miranda warnings. The court held that such comm
• United States v. Day Drew Luttrell
  612 F.2d 396· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's failure to file tax returns in years subsequent to those charged, as it was relevant to intent and knowledge.
• Burley Clifton Harryman v. Estelle
  597 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 12×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  The admission into evidence of an unlawfully obtained incriminating statement, elicited during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings, was not harmless constitutional error because it may have contributed to the conviction.
• Andrews v. State
  372 So. 2d 143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-12 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Patricia Andrews was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and petty larceny in a joint trial with co-defendant Sublette for the beating death of Louis Broeker during a home invasion. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Andrews' claims that denial of sever
• United States v. Noah
  594 F.2d 1303· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-11 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that inquiring about the numerical division of a deliberating jury constitutes plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Hall
  587 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if the search and seizure were unlawful, the errors were harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The conviction for kidnapping was affirmed.
• United States v. DeVAUGN
  579 F.2d 225· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The court should affirm the jury verdict because the trial judge's evidentiary ruling regarding the conspiracy's end was within his discretion.
• United States v. Stewart
  576 F.2d 50· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  A confession obtained without complete Miranda warnings, including the right to appointed counsel for indigents, is inadmissible in the government's case-in-chief, and its admission, along with evidence of prior crimes contained therein, cannot be considered harmless error when t
• Burkhart v. Stoney Lane
  574 F.2d 346· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition without examining the trial record.
• United States v. Lowe
  569 F.2d 1113· 10th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal or mistrial, in allowing the mother to identify her child, or in refusing to allow the defendant to change counsel late in the trial.
• United States v. Shapiro
  565 F.2d 479· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-15 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b).
• United States v. Williams
  556 F.2d 65· D.C. Cir.· 1977-04-28 ·cited 12×
• Berryman v. Colbert
  538 F.2d 1247· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that prosecutorial comment on the defendant's failure to testify violated the Fifth Amendment regarding the murder conviction, but was harmless error for the conspiracy conviction due to strong evidence.
• United States v. Erasmus Flecha
  539 F.2d 874· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement against appellant, based solely on his silence while under arrest, was erroneous.
• United States v. Royal Kenneth Hayes
  535 F.2d 479· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 12×
  A state statutory pardon does not remove federal disabilities for felons possessing firearms, and advice of counsel is not a defense to this charge.
• Donnie Lee Ivory v. State
  330 So. 2d 853· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 12×
• Petrycki v. Youngstown & N. R.R. Co.
  531 F.2d 1363· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-23 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a trial judge's ex parte communication with a jury, answering a question about the maximum award amount without notice to counsel, constitutes reversible error unless affirmatively shown to be harmless.
• Fleming Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Ne. Okla. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council
  532 F.2d 162· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in requiring proof of damages by clear and convincing evidence, this error was harmless because Fleming failed to prove the existence of damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also affirmed the denial of damages, find
• United States v. Scott
  529 F.2d 338· D.C. Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction should be affirmed, but the sentence should be modified to include probation.
• United States v. Aloyisus M. Brown
  519 F.2d 1368· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-31 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper cross-examination, which introduced unproven allegations to the jury, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Robinson
  502 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's trial attorney's conduct did not fall below the standard for effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Perkins
  498 F.2d 1054· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-28 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the record's accuracy was questionable, the reconstructed malice instruction, despite containing errors, did not necessitate a new trial but warranted remand for resentencing.
• United States v. Black
  480 F.2d 504· 6th Cir.· 1973-06-15 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that the Brooks decision, extending Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, should be applied prospectively, meaning it applies to critical stages occurring after the Brooks decision.
• United States v. Stroud
  474 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1973-03-02 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the revocation of bail during trial was improper, it constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. The court also held that the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) merged with the conviction under § 2113(d).
• Favors v. Eyman
  466 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the filing of a complaint does not trigger the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a prosecutor's improper comment on a defendant's silence can be harmless error.