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

• Thomas v. State
  701 So. 2d 891· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-11-05 ·cited 6×
  Testimony that appellant was housed in a prison wing reserved for "more violent inmates" constitutes impermissible character evidence under Florida Evidence Code § 90.404(1) and is reversible error, not subject to harmless error analysis given the importance of the self-defense i
• Dingle v. State
  699 So. 2d 834· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-10-01 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that precluding cross-examination of a witness about pending charges is subject to harmless error analysis, and convictions for both felony murder and the underlying felony of aggravated child abuse are not barred by double jeopardy.
• Moody Wayne Collins v. State
  698 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-09-12 ·cited 6×
  Collins appeals his second-degree murder conviction for the shooting death of his 13-year-old son. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecution improperly impeached its own witness (Collins's wife) as a subterfuge to introduce irrelevant and highl
• Quinn v. State
  692 So. 2d 988· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-05-02 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Robert Quinn appeals his convictions and sentences in two criminal cases from 1995 and 1996. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and the 1996 sentence but vacated the 1995 sentence because the trial court imposed a 36-month sentence that exceeded the maximum 21.25-month
• Ferreira v. State
  692 So. 2d 264· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-04-25 ·cited 6×
  Anthony Joseph Ferreira was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery. On appeal to Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal, he challenged the trial court's use of the standard jury instruction on reasonable doubt and the admission of a photographic eyewitness
• Barbee v. State
  630 So. 2d 655· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-01-14 ·cited 6×
  Barbee appeals his conviction, arguing that the state's failure to provide exactly 10 days' notice of similar-fact evidence (providing only 9 days) should automatically render that evidence inadmissible. The court affirmed, holding that procedural violations require reversal only
• United States v. Olson
  978 F.2d 1472· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• Canterbury v. State
  606 So. 2d 504· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-10-23 ·cited 6×
  Jerry Canterbury appealed his sentence for escape from the Leon County Detention Center, arguing the trial court improperly assessed legal constraint points on the sentencing scoresheet even though legal constraint is an essential element of the escape crime itself. The court rev
• Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis.
  974 F.2d 192· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the government's actions constituted authorization of copyright infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b).
• United States v. Saenz
  969 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court's error in misstating the minimum term of supervised release was harmless and did not entitle the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Green
  964 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed Green's convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and money laundering, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting his challenges to the indictment.
• United States v. Estrada
  965 F.2d 651· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that even if a sentencing court relies on impermissible factors for an upward departure, the sentence may be affirmed if the court would have imposed the same sentence based on permissible factors and the sentence is reasonable.
• United States v. Noland
  960 F.2d 1384· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior insurance claims to show motive and intent, nor in applying a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on the defendant's solicitation of false testimony from her children.
• Hunter v. Bernie Aispuro
  958 F.2d 955· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state court's denial of the habeas petition rested on independent and adequate state grounds, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or manifest injustice to overcome this procedural bar.
• Williams v. State
  592 So. 2d 350· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-14 ·cited 6×
  Charles Henry Williams appeals his convictions for sexual battery, kidnapping, robbery, and cocaine possession. The Florida appellate court affirms the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's admission of evidence regarding two other similar rape allegations committed
• United States v. Huguenin
  950 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the competency examination was properly ordered despite defendant's objections, and any procedural irregularities in the competency determination or the provision of jury tax information were harmless error.
• United States v. Gassler
  943 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-09 ·cited 6×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that references to a murder during trial constituted harmless error and that the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was reasonable.
• Clark v. Moran
  942 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the introduction of the benzidine test results, while a constitutional violation, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming untainted evidence of guilt. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that trial counsel's pe
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• United States v. Garcia-Garcia
  939 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's complete failure to advise the defendant of the possibility or effect of supervised release during the guilty plea colloquy was not harmless error because the potential restraint on liberty exceeded the maximum penalty advised.
• United States v. Copley
  938 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 6×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  The court held that any error in admitting a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Meeks v. Dugger
  576 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
• Mahorney v. Wallman
  917 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, arguing that the prosecutor's remarks, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not deny the defendant due process.
• Kowalski v. Gagne
  914 F.2d 299· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that a prior murder conviction can collaterally estop a defendant from contesting liability under the wrongful death statute and the applicability of an intentional act exclusion in an insurance policy. The court also affirmed the admission of the conviction as evi
• Carapella v. United States (In Re Carapella)
  115 B.R. 365· M.D. Fla.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the debtor was estopped from denying dominion and control over shell corporations and that his tax liabilities were not dischargeable due to evasion.
• Reynolds Brooks v. State
  555 So. 2d 929· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-16 ·cited 6×·via Burden Of Proof For Harmless Error
  Reynolds Brooks appeals his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary, and weapons charges, arguing the trial court erred by failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into his request to discharge his court-appointed counsel. The Florida appellate court reversed and reman
• Guerts v. Barth
  892 F.2d 622· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the plaintiff waived the right to appeal the sudden emergency jury instruction by failing to state specific grounds for objection at trial.
• Collazo v. Estelle
  898 F.2d 87· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible, as it was not the product of police coercion despite initial improper statements.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist.
  879 F.2d 434· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the EEOC's proposed jury instruction, as it was not a correct statement of the law for a new hire situation and any error would have been harmless.
• United States v. Parker
  877 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for two counts of conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on venue, evidence exclusion, grand jury testimony, prosecutorial arguments, or sentencing.
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• Bersett v. K-Mart Corp.
  869 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding the new rule from Cox v. J.C. Penney Co. should not be applied retroactively.
• Nixon v. State
  536 So. 2d 391· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-01-11 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Nixon was convicted of unarmed robbery, resisting arrest with violence, simple battery, and offering to commit lewdness following an alleged prostitution encounter with an undercover police officer. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions because the prosecut
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  An out-of-court statement offered to explain preliminary circumstances, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• United States v. Said Arefi
  847 F.2d 1003· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that while some technical violations of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 occurred, a specific misstatement in the presentence report implying involvement in multiple drug transactions was prejudicial and may have influenced the sentence, requiring vacation and remand for resentenc
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• Dick v. Kemp
  833 F.2d 1448· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Review
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was squarely before the jury and the evidence of intent was not overwhelming.
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• Smothers v. State
  513 So. 2d 776· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-10-12 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Timothy Smothers was convicted of attempted armed robbery after the trial court admitted an involuntary pretrial statement for impeachment purposes without making a voluntariness determination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court must explicitly determine vol
• Clark v. Rose
  822 F.2d 596· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Court held that the Sandstrom error in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant's guilt and intent, and the jury would have reached the same verdict regardless of the erroneous instruction.
• United States v. Drosten
  819 F.2d 1067· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
• United States v. Norton
  808 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the word 'intimidate' in 18 U.S.C. § 844(d) requires an intent to affect future behavior, not merely to frighten. The jury instruction was erroneous and not harmless.
• DIX v. Kemp
  804 F.2d 618· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a jury instruction impermissibly shifting the burden of proof on intent, in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, was not harmless error when the defendant raised an insanity defense, as intent remained a critical issue.
• United States v. Huddleston
  802 F.2d 874· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior misconduct (sale of televisions) without clear and convincing proof that the televisions were stolen, as its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.
• State v. Alvarez
  490 So. 2d 1068· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-07-08 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Schmitt
  794 F.2d 555· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 6×
  Even if the prosecutor's comments on the appellant's silence violated the Fifth Amendment, such comments were harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The admission of evidence regarding the appellant's tax liability was also proper.
• United States v. Jonas
  786 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting redacted statements, or in its handling of a potentially biased juror. The convictions were affirmed.
• W. Fire Ins. Co. v. Alva Sherwood Copeland
  786 F.2d 649· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the punitive damages claim without providing the required notice and opportunity to be heard, but affirmed the jury's verdict on the contractual damages claim.
• United States v. Raetzsch
  781 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-05 ·cited 6×
  An unsupported allegation of an unkept plea bargain does not merit an evidentiary hearing when the plea statements to the contrary were not given under oath, especially when raised late and inconsistent with prior statements.
• Logan v. Abshire
  778 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Sandstrom error in the jury instructions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus the district court erred in granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus.