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

• Warren v. State
  270 So. 2d 8· Fla.· 1972-07-28 ·cited 12×
  The prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant regarding prior convictions and questioning of an alibi witness about the defendant's prior stay at a boys' reform school constituted harmless error warranting affirmance of conviction.
• Bessman v. State
  259 So. 2d 776· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's error in sustaining an objection to a cross-examination question was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Stevens
  452 F.2d 633· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-03 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding other stolen vehicles did not constitute reversible error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States ex rel. William C. Stubbs v. Mancusi
  442 F.2d 561· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-19 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The admission of prior testimony from a witness who was not made available for cross-examination at retrial, despite the prosecution's failure to make a good-faith effort to secure his presence, violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error.
• Brevard Cnty. v. Apel
  246 So. 2d 134· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-03-26 ·cited 12×
  In this personal injury appeal, the court upheld a $57,000 verdict for the plaintiff, affirming the admissibility of a psychologist's expert testimony regarding post-traumatic syndrome despite the defendant's challenge that the opinion was based partly on plaintiff's history rath
• United States v. Sims
  434 F.2d 258· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of a government witness's prior conviction documents was not prejudicial error, and the admission of a co-defendant's redacted statement did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The conviction was affirmed based on untainted counts.
• State v. Garcia
  240 So. 2d 633· Fla.· 1970-10-21 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed three District Court of Appeal decisions that had overturned convictions based on Bruton v. United States concerns regarding admission of co-defendants' confessions. The Court held that under specific circumstances—including sufficient independe
• Earnest L. Jacobson v. People OF the State OF Cal. & Louis S. Nelson
  431 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding illegally obtained confessions and improper jury selection were without merit or moot, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Young
  422 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(1) must be vacated due to Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns, but convictions for illegal transfer and conspiracy stand. Admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statements was harmless error due to overwhelmin
• O'Neil v. Nelson
  422 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The admission of a co-defendant's out-of-court statement, which inculpated the defendant but was denied by the co-defendant when testifying, violates the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Denver Lane Moore
  419 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 12×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the denial of continuances did not prejudice the defendant and the jury instruction on consent to search was proper.
• United States v. Ryan
  415 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while a warrantless search of the automobile was unconstitutional, the admission of evidence obtained from that search was harmless error because other evidence conclusively established ownership and guilt.
• Hall v. United States
  413 F.2d 45· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-02 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that the appellant could not assert the Fifth Amendment rights of his co-conspirators, nor could he claim his indictment was unlawful based on alleged violations of their rights.
• United States v. Satterfield
  410 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1969-05-23 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the severance motion and that the admission of pre-trial identification evidence was harmless error.
• Gillison v. United States
  399 F.2d 586· D.C. Cir.· 1968-07-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper cross-examination regarding the appellant's silence upon arrest violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and was not harmless error.
• Gresham v. United States
  374 F.2d 389· 8th Cir.· 1967-03-30 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a gun, even if improper, was harmless error because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights given the strength of the evidence.
• Simmons v. United States
  308 F.2d 324· D.C. Cir.· 1962-06-07 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial court erred in denying the defense's request for an in camera inspection of grand jury minutes for potential inconsistencies, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Sawyer
  294 F.2d 24· 4th Cir.· 1961-08-19 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to find the defendant guilty of possessing property intended for use in violating internal revenue laws, and that the admission of evidence concerning a nearby still was proper to show intent.
• UHL v. Echols Transfer Co. & Rufus Johnson
  238 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1956-11-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying motions for a new trial, as alleged errors in counsel's conduct and evidentiary rulings were either harmless, provoked, or properly handled by the judge.
• Knight v. United States
  225 F.2d 55· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 12×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the failure to formally file an information detailing a prior conviction was harmless error when the defendant admitted his prior conviction and identity in open court.
• Price v. United States
  200 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-06 ·cited 12×·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction misplacing the burden of proof on a material issue requires reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Smith v. Biscayne Park Ests.
  42 So. 2d 442· Fla.· 1949-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the transactions were mortgages, not deeds of sale, and affirmed the lower court's decree.
• E. C. Roper, Inc. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.
  116 Fla. 796· Fla.· 1934-10-11 ·cited 12×
  E. C. Roper, Inc. appealed a judgment on a promissory note, arguing the corporation lacked authority (ultra vires) to assume an individual's debt. The Florida Supreme Court held that when a corporation acquires a business and its assets, it may validly assume pre-existing debts a
• Deviney v. State
  213 So. 3d 794· Fla.· 2017-03-23 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Review
  Randall Deviney was convicted of first-degree murder of Delores Futrell and sentenced to death by jury recommendation of 8-4. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new penalty phase because the non-unanimous jury verdi
• Regions Bank v. Rhodes
  126 So. 3d 1259· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-11-20 ·cited 11×
  Regions Bank appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for attorneys' fees based on an offer of judgment, arguing its settlement proposal was timely. The Fourth District affirms, holding that the proposal was premature because it was served fewer than 90 days after the actio
• English v. State
  43 So. 3d 871· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-09-03 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial court erred in admitting a BOLO dispatch, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the victim had already provided the same description and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Hutchens v. State
  730 So. 2d 825· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-04-09 ·cited 11×
  The trial court's failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the defendant's right to self-representation requires reversal, but the admission of collateral crime evidence was proper.
• Bellamy v. State
  712 So. 2d 409· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-04-24 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Eddie Bellamy appealed his conviction for delivery of cocaine and habitual felony offender sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the habitual offender sentence due to insufficient proof of the requisite temporal connection between the current and pr
• First v. State
  696 So. 2d 1357· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-25 ·cited 11×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper personal opinion during opening statement, calling the defendant's alibi witness a 'liar,' constituted reversible error because the evidence against the defendant was not strong.
• Segarra v. Mellerson
  675 So. 2d 980· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-05-29 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony and comments thereon, but erred in denying attorney's fees based on an incorrect standard.
• Arney v. State
  652 So. 2d 437· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-03-17 ·cited 11×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  The trial court erred in admitting out-of-court statements from a child victim without making the findings required by Florida Evidence Code section 90.803(23), and erred in admitting statements from a non-victim child witness, which errors were harmful and not subject to harmles
• Iracio Desilien v. State
  595 So. 2d 1046· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-03-11 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Desilien was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and felony murder. On appeal, he challenged a jury instruction on willful blindness and a denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court found the willful blindness instruction was error but harmless beyond a reasonable
• United States v. Adolph J. Barsanti
  943 F.2d 428· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding expert testimony on the meaning of 'owner-occupant' as it was within common knowledge, and any error regarding 'this transaction' was harmless. Venue was proper, and the Sentencing Guidelines applied to the conspirac
• Gomez v. State
  572 So. 2d 952· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-12-13 ·cited 11×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Esther Gomez was convicted of cocaine trafficking after a jury trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because a state witness improperly commented on Gomez's exercise of her Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to search her vehicle.
• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy
  919 F.2d 1091· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 11×
  The admission of the appellant's confession, obtained in violation of Miranda rights, was harmless error for both the liability and sentencing phases of the trial. The appellant was not deprived of his constitutional right to psychiatric assistance, and the jury instructions rega
• Colina v. State
  570 So. 2d 929· Fla.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Manuel Colina was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the beating deaths of an elderly couple. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but reversed the death sentences, finding that trial court errors regarding the exclusion of Cas
• Landa Williams v. State
  556 So. 2d 799· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-02-14 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Landa Williams's convictions on all counts but found error in the sentencing phase. The court vacated the sentence on Count VI (attempted lewd and lascivious assault) and remanded for resentencing because the combined incarceration and
• Petree v. Power
  887 F.2d 34· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of a subsequent warning decal under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as it was admissible for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 407's exception.
• Madison Anderson v. Sheppard
  856 F.2d 741· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district judge's actions during settlement discussions did not demonstrate bias warranting disqualification, and the denial of a continuance was within the judge's discretion.
• United States v. Lynch
  800 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, refusing a manslaughter instruction, admitting certain statements, limiting cross-examination, or in finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions.
• Alvord v. Wainwright
  564 F. Supp. 459· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a defendant's expressed unwillingness to raise a defense does not absolve counsel of the responsibility to investigate and present that defense, especially when the defense is the only plausible one.
• United States ex rel. Robert Gorham v. Franzen
  675 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the petitioner established a prima facie case that the state appellate court's finding was not fairly supported by the record, warranting further review.
• Lornitis v. State
  394 So. 2d 455· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-02-10 ·cited 11×
  John and Michael Lornitis were convicted of marijuana possession and aiding/abetting respectively after police elicited incriminating statements identifying their luggage amidst marijuana bales, despite the brothers' refusal to sign a Miranda waiver form. The court reversed their
• United States v. Johns
  625 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 11×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that any error in failing to address the appellant personally regarding her admission of probation violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Mansfield v. State
  338 So. 2d 857· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-06-15 ·cited 11×
  Willie Mansfield and Tommie Harris were convicted of trespass and grand larceny after being found hiding in a warehouse during a police response to a burglar alarm. They appealed their convictions and Mansfield also appealed his probation revocation, arguing that a police officer
• Farese v. State
  328 So. 2d 548· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-03-23 ·cited 11×
  The court held that admitting testimony about a defendant's post-arrest silence, even after striking it and admonishing the jury, constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Hal Clemit Derrick
  507 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1974-12-03 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the government erred in not producing all of the witness's prior statements, the error was harmless because the defense already possessed the same information.
• Thompson v. State
  246 So. 2d 760· Fla.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 11×
  Albert Bone Thompson was convicted of rape without recommendation of mercy and appealed on two grounds: that employment of his co-defendant's former counsel by the prosecution violated due process, and that the rape statute's mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional. The Flor
• Maule Indus., Inc. v. Watson
  201 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-08-01 ·cited 11×
  An owner of property may not invoke the independent contractor defense to escape liability for negligence where substantial evidence establishes that the owner itself was negligent. The defense articulated in Florida Power and Light Co. v. Price does not apply when the defendant
• Jones v. State
  212 So. 3d 321· Fla.· 2017-03-02 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Review
  Henry Lee Jones was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murder of Carlos Perez and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, holding that evidence of Jones's similar murders of two other victims was properly admitted to establish i