Harmless Error Doctrine

1,383 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

• Sutton v. Barnhouse
  724 F.2d 406· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 96×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that National Steel did not violate ERISA by modifying contingent benefits and that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgments.
• United States v. Brown
  584 F.2d 252· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the search warrants were valid, the jury instructions were adequate, and the recitation of Miranda warnings was harmless error, but the evidence was insufficient to convict Cleo Brown of conspiracy.
• United States v. Green
  548 F.2d 1261· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 96×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of extensive, irrelevant, and prejudicial expert testimony regarding the properties, street value, and potential for abuse of DMT, as well as the economic incentives for its manufacture, constituted a violation of the defendants' due process righ
• Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Zia Durrani
  455 So. 2d 515· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-08-16 ·cited 95×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the Board's rule setting a minimum FLEX score and requiring it from a single sitting was a valid exercise of delegated authority, and that deficiencies in the Economic Impact Statement did not impair the fairness of the proceeding.
• McARTHUR v. Cook
  99 So. 2d 565· Fla.· 1957-12-20 ·cited 95×
  In a personal injury suit arising from a workplace accident at a dairy, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed a jury verdict for the employee-plaintiff and held that under Florida Statutes § 90.08, evidence of a witness's prior criminal conviction is admissible in civil cases to
• In re Barnett. Barnett v. Jaspan
  124 F.2d 1005· 2d Cir.· 1942-01-07 ·cited 95×
  The court should not decide issues not properly appealed or abandoned by the appellant.
• United States v. Elkins
  885 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 92×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the conspiracy conviction, finding the indictment adequately charged conspiracy to defraud the United States and the jury was properly instructed. The court also affirmed the conviction related to export violations, finding the Allen charge was not coercive and
• United States v. Hammond
  598 F.2d 1008· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 92×·via Harmless Error Rule
• Johnson v. United States
  207 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1953-09-17 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the denial of the motion to suppress evidence was proper, affirming the conviction.
• Burgess v. Premier Corp.
  727 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 91×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that summary judgment and directed verdicts were properly denied on statute of limitations and release issues, but should have been granted for defendants Schrock and Darby on federal and state securities claims due to insufficient evidence of scienter or control.
• United States v. Severo D. Espinosa
  771 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 90×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or mistrial based on co-defendant's opening statement.
• Collins v. Wayne Corp.
  621 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to offer an expert's deposition as an admission of the defendant, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in allowing cross-examination of the plaintiffs'
• United States v. Lemon
  550 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-08 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the admission of pre-Miranda statements was harmless error, the consent to search was voluntary and not a Miranda violation, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• James v. United States
  416 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that various alleged trial errors, including issues with jury selection, indictment sufficiency, search warrants, joinder, co-defendant statements, jury instructions, grand jury testimony disclosure, de
• Curfew Davis v. Kemp
  752 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the distinction between non-participation and mens rea defenses is flawed and that a Sandstrom error cannot be harmless when intent is an element of the crime.
• Durousseau v. State
  55 So. 3d 543· Fla.· 2010-12-09 ·cited 87×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Paul Durousseau was convicted of first-degree murder in the strangulation death of Tyresa Mack and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, finding the evidence sufficient and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitti
• Boykins v. Louie L. Wainwright
  737 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 87×
  The court held that while the state trial court erred in excluding Dr. Rodriguez's testimony regarding the defendant's prior mental health issues, this error was not of constitutional magnitude and did not violate fundamental fairness.
• United States v. Soulard
  730 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 86×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence related to the bank deposits method, summary charts, comparison of gross receipts, or extrinsic actions, nor in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Jannotti
  729 F.2d 213· 3d Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 86×
  The court held that while the appellants' conduct was sufficient to convict them of Hobbs Act conspiracy, the evidence did not prove Schwartz conspired to conduct the affairs of the law firm as required for a RICO conviction.
• United States v. Butera
  677 F.2d 1376· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 86×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, witness sequestration, judicial remarks, prosecutorial comments, or jury selection. The court also affirmed the joinder and severance rulings for DeNoma, and applied the concurrent sente
• United States v. Bloom
  538 F.2d 704· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-13 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other drug dealings, refusing an evidentiary hearing on wiretapping, or denying dismissal for speedy trial violations.
• Gomila v. United States
  146 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-28 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the trial court's errors, including an incorrect charge on the presumption of innocence and the judge's undue participation in the trial, cumulatively prejudiced the defendants and required reversal.
• United States v. Studley
  783 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 85×
  An illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction, and a district court's denial of a continuance or jury lists, or a judge's recusal, will be affirmed if not an abuse of discretion or legally insufficient.
• O'Callaghan v. State
  429 So. 2d 691· Fla.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 85×·via Harmless Error Rule
  John O'Callaghan was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to death for his role in the brutal killing of Gerald Vick. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting O'Callaghan's challenges to the joint trial with his codefe
• United States v. Georgalis
  631 F.2d 1199· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 85×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while a prosecutor's improper questioning about a non-existent conviction was error, it was harmless given the strength of the evidence and corrective instructions; however, mail fraud was not proven for two counts where the mailed letters were not in furthera
• United States v. Heath
  580 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 85×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the majority's conclusion sustaining the convictions was incorrect due to numerous reversible errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, Jencks Act violations, and a prejudicial variance between the indictment's single conspiracy theory and the evidence of mu
• Chapman v. United States
  553 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 85×
  A criminal defendant's demand to represent himself pro se must be honored as timely if made before the jury is selected, absent an affirmative showing that it was a tactic to secure delay.
• Ramirez v. State
  542 So. 2d 352· Fla.· 1989-03-16 ·cited 84×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Joseph Jerome Ramirez was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the Christmas 1983 murder of a Federal Express employee. The Florida Supreme Court reversed both conviction and sentence, finding that expert testimony positively identifying a knife as the murd
• United States v. Berry
  627 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the defendant's jury selection and prosecutorial misconduct claims did not warrant reversal of his conviction.
• United States v. Ruffin
  575 F.2d 346· 2d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 84×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the government's failure to issue "target" warnings did not vitiate convictions, and evidence was sufficient for corporate tax evasion convictions. However, one conviction for personal income tax evasion was reversed due to inadmissible hearsay testimony.
• Darden v. State
  306 So. 2d 581· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-01-24 ·cited 84×
  Convictions affirmed but general twenty-year sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because imposing a single sentence across multiple crimes presents constitutional problems requiring apportionment between the robbery and assault convictions.
• Patriarca v. United States
  402 F.2d 314· 1st Cir.· 1968-10-14 ·cited 84×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance and change of venue due to pretrial publicity, and that the prosecutor's statement, while improper, was harmless error under the circumstances.
• United States v. Crutcher
  405 F.2d 239· 2d Cir.· 1968-09-12 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a defendant's absence during jury impaneling requires a remand to determine if a knowing waiver occurred, as the right to be present is fundamental and its violation is not automatically harmless error. Other claims were found to be without merit.
• United States v. Winkle
  587 F.2d 705· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding the indictment, trial conduct, and jury impropriety were without merit or constituted harmless error, thus affirming his convictions.
• United States v. Granello
  365 F.2d 990· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-03 ·cited 83×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the denial of a severance motion was not prejudicial and that defendants lacked standing to suppress evidence seized from a third party.
• Alastair Kyle v. United States
  297 F.2d 507· 2d Cir.· 1961-11-29 ·cited 83×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that new facts alleged in a second § 2255 motion, suggesting the government suppressed crucial correspondence, warranted an evidentiary hearing despite prior unsuccessful appeals.
• United States v. Prout
  526 F.2d 380· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and distribution convictions, the search warrant for the premises was valid, and the government's failure to disclose all details of a witness's deal was harmless error.
• Franqui v. State
  Fla.· 1997-06-26 ·cited 81×·via Harmless Error Review
  Leonardo Franqui was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes in connection with an attempted armed robbery that resulted in the death of Raul Lopez. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, finding that while the trial court erred in admitt
• United States v. Taylor
  716 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-23 ·cited 81×
  A defendant cannot be punished for both attempt and conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 for a single course of conduct, even if elements of both are present.
• United States v. Landis Cuber Dothard
  666 F.2d 498· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 81×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court improperly admitted extrinsic act evidence because it was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense and its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial impact. The court also found insufficient evidence that the defendant committed
• Int'l AIR Indus., Inc. v. Am. Excelsior Co.
  517 F.2d 714· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff on the Robinson-Patman charge, nor in excluding certain evidence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial impairment of competition or predatory intent.
• United States v. Cerro
  775 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the defendant's sentence was improperly calculated based on multiple conspiracies, and that the evidence did not sufficiently prove separate conspiracies. The court also found that any error in excluding impeachment evidence was harmless.
• Burch v. State
  462 So. 2d 548· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-11 ·cited 80×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  George Burch appeals his sentencing departure from Florida's sentencing guidelines, which imposed two concurrent five-year prison terms instead of the recommended community control or 12-30 months incarceration. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, findin
• United States v. Zylstra
  713 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue, reinstating bail, or in sentencing the defendant, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel and was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's closing re
• Ciccarelli v. State
  531 So. 2d 129· Fla.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 79×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether appellate judges must independently read the complete trial record when evaluating harmless error claims in criminal appeals. The Court held that each appellate judge has a personal responsibility to examine the entire trial record, and
• Curtis v. State
  480 So. 2d 1277· Fla.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 79×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Curtis was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the trial judge responded to jury questions during deliberations without following Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, which requires the prosecutor and defense counsel to be present. The Florida Supreme
• Starnes v. Honorable Matthew F. McGUIRE
  512 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 79×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a transfer order after the case file was physically transferred to the transferee court, and that the transfer of Small's case to the District of Kansas was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) given the factual issues involve
• United States v. Carlo Scott Bagley
  772 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine to preclude impeachment with prior robbery convictions, but the error was harmless. The court also held that the warrantless seizure of the getaway car was lawful under the automobile exc
• Abrams v. Paul
  453 So. 2d 826· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-06-12 ·cited 78×
  This appeal involves a default judgment and jury verdict in a suit arising from the sale of a stolen truck. The court affirmed the default and damages verdict on most points but reversed and remanded regarding whether defendants received timely notice of trial, holding that the t
• Palmes v. Louie L. Wainwright
  725 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible, and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.