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

• Ackerman v. State
  372 So. 2d 215· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-06-29 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Longee
  603 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of one defendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a co-defendant, when the declarant does not testify, violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes plain error, requiring reversal of the co-defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Vissars
  596 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-07 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Roby
  592 F.2d 406· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
• United States v. Phillips
  593 F.2d 553· 4th Cir.· 1978-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that wiretap authorizations, searches, seizures, and evidentiary rulings were lawful and did not violate defendants' rights.
• United States v. Brown
  575 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to make an explicit finding on the voluntariness of the defendant's statement, considering the issue of intoxication, with unmistakable clarity.
• Randolph v. Parker
  575 F.2d 1178· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendants' confessions in a joint trial, where the co-defendants did not testify and were not subject to cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause under Bruton v. United States, and this violation could not be
• Roth v. State
  359 So. 2d 881· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed a conviction for first-degree murder, holding that statements made by the defendant during a pre-polygraph interview were admissible.
• Wagner v. State
  356 So. 2d 867· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-03-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, and this error was not harmless.
• King v. State
  355 So. 2d 831· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-02-21 ·cited 8×
  Dale James King appeals his conviction for two murders and two attempted murders committed in Miami in 1974. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed King's conviction and life sentence, rejecting his claims that discovery violations, improper cross-examination regarding his p
• The Twp. OF Benton v. Cnty. OF Berrien
  570 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-08 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the EDA's regulations for allocating public works funds were not arbitrary or capricious, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against the EDA. The court also found the district court's procedural errors in granting summary judgment t
• People of the United States ex rel. John J. Rooney v. Housewright
  568 F.2d 516· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial due to the exclusion of evidence regarding the deceased's reputation for violence and the improper emphasis on the defendant's silence to police.
• Stevens v. State
  351 So. 2d 1077· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-11-01 ·cited 8×
  Curtis Stevens and Aldrian Cook were convicted of robbery, conspiracy, and related crimes following a 1975 Publix supermarket robbery. On appeal, the court reversed Cook's robbery conviction due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses as mand
• United States v. Haynes
  560 F.2d 913· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible, and that the admission of such statements, even if hearsay, does not violate the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is unavailable.
• United States v. Davis
  548 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for perjury was supported by sufficient evidence, as the two-witness rule was satisfied by the agent's testimony and the defendant's own signed statement and trial testimony.
• Manning v. State
  336 So. 2d 408· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-08-17 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The defendant appeals his conviction for possession of burglary tools, breaking and entering, and grand larceny, challenging the trial court's denial of two motions for mistrial based on allegedly improper prosecutorial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while o
• United States v. Andrea
  538 F.2d 1255· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-27 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that despite potentially improper testimony regarding the defendant's prior incarceration, the conviction should be affirmed under the harmless error rule due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Gill v. Estelle
  530 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the use of an unconstitutionally obtained probation revocation at the punishment stage of a trial, to argue for a longer sentence, violates due process and equal protection.
• Doyle Delmar Royal v. State OF Md.
  529 F.2d 1280· 4th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of testimony identifying the defendant from an unduly suggestive lineup was not harmless error, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Fairfield
  526 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that knowledge of the interstate nature of the crime is not required for a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371, and that the arrest and search were lawful. The court also found the jury instructions to be adequate.
• United States v. Duhart
  511 F.2d 7· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-11 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the erroneous limitation of cross-examination regarding a witness's criminal history and potential bias was harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the witness's testimony was not critical. The court also affirmed the denial of search
• United States v. Serrano
  496 F.2d 81· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 8×
  Improper prosecutorial comments during summation, which vouch for a government witness's credibility and appeal to patriotism, constitute reversible error, even if the evidence of guilt is strong.
• United States v. Oliver
  492 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding the victim's reputation for truth and veracity improperly restricted the defendant's opportunity to present an adequate defense.
• Horton v. State
  285 So. 2d 418· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-08-31 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  William Horton was convicted of rape in a joint trial with his brother Leslie. The trial court suppressed William's own statements under Miranda, but allowed Leslie's incriminating statements against William at trial despite William's lack of opportunity to cross-examine Leslie.
• United States v. Phillips
  482 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-06 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the government's failure to produce certain receipts under the Jencks Act was harmless error, and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Bamberger
  482 F.2d 166· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-29 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the denial of a free transcript of a co-defendant's trial was harmless error, and the search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause.
• Daughtery v. State
  269 So. 2d 426· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-11-30 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Rule
  William Tommy Daughtery was convicted of armed robbery after testimony that he pulled a gun during the third visit to Kassees Grocery Store. On appeal, Daughtery challenged the trial court's admission of hearsay evidence—a statement by an unknown boy that the group planned to rob
• United States v. Valez
  467 F.2d 600· 8th Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court committed no plain error in admitting in-court identifications, as they were based on independent sources other than the tainted lineup identification.
• Adkins v. Beto
  462 F.2d 802· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-27 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of a potentially illegally seized murder weapon was harmless error, and other claims raised in the habeas petition lacked merit.
• United States v. Mitchell
  457 F.2d 513· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the arrest and subsequent searches were valid, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.
• Kaufman v. United States
  453 F.2d 798· 8th Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the warrantless search of the car was unreasonable, any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence obtained did not prejudice the defendant's insanity defense.
• United States v. Brown
  452 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while admitting confessions that implicated co-defendants in violation of Bruton v. United States was an error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Childs
  252 So. 2d 288· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-09-07 ·cited 8×
  New York Life Insurance Company appeals the denial of its motion to exclude evidence regarding whether the insured was a pilot or crew member under an aviation exclusion in a double indemnity life insurance policy. The court reversed, finding the excluded evidence material and re
• United States v. Horton
  440 F.2d 253· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that any errors in admitting evidence or allowing impeachment by prior convictions were harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Reizenstein v. Sigler
  428 F.2d 702· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state courts failed to provide a constitutionally adequate hearing on the voluntariness of the petitioner's confession, requiring a remand for a proper determination or a new trial.
• Petley v. United States
  427 F.2d 1101· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the jury instruction under 21 U.S.C. § 176a, while containing an unconstitutional inference, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found sufficient evidence for knowing possession and proper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Fueston
  426 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-30 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, an unconstitutional presumption instruction required a new trial.
• United States v. Rody Charles Grey
  422 F.2d 1043· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 8×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed Williams' conviction but vacated Grey's conviction and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
• Saville v. O'Brien
  420 F.2d 347· 1st Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was insufficient on its face because it failed to provide a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay information, thus violating the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Davis
  418 F.2d 59· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-24 ·cited 8×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Greene
  400 F.2d 847· 6th Cir.· 1968-08-08 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that highly prejudicial and irrelevant cross-examination tainted the proceedings, requiring reversal.
• Thompson v. United States
  382 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1967-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the discovery of marijuana was accidental and not the result of an unlawful search, making the subsequent arrest and seizure lawful. Even if the search were unlawful, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Zurita
  369 F.2d 474· 7th Cir.· 1966-11-09 ·cited 8×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge holds that a sketch made by an agent from witness impressions should be considered a 'written statement' under 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1) for impeachment purposes.
• J.C. Demmy v. Sligh
  189 So. 2d 843· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-09-02 ·cited 8×
  This case involves an appeal from an order granting a new trial to a plaintiff in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by the evidence and that the trial court erred in granting a new tri
• Eubanks v. State
  179 So. 2d 256· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-10-21 ·cited 8×
  W.C. Eubanks was convicted of second-degree murder after the trial court erred in striking the testimony of three character witnesses. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the error was not harmless because the witnesses' testimony regarding the defe
• C. L. Forester and wife v. The Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co.
  338 F.2d 970· 5th Cir.· 1964-11-30 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that while defense counsel's statement was inadmissible, it did not cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Boyce
  340 F.2d 418· 4th Cir.· 1964-11-06 ·cited 8×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's confession, which implicated the appellant and was made after the co-conspirator pleaded guilty, constituted prejudicial error.
• Manhattan Shirt Co. v. Andrew D. M. Tomlinson in Bankr. of the Est. of N. Porter Mercantile Co.
  327 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-28 ·cited 8×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that even if the referee did not strictly follow bankruptcy rules in selecting a creditors' committee and trustee, reversal was not warranted due to the lack of demonstrated prejudice and the futility of relitigating the issue after the estate had been liquidated.
• Chereton v. United States
  286 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-30 ·cited 8×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because the questions and answers set forth therein clearly showed materiality to the bankruptcy inquiry, and the trial judge's questioning of a witness was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Klock
  210 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1954-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's error in denying the defense access to the full grand jury testimony was harmless because the defendant's admission of intent to deceive bank examiners was overwhelming.