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

• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Joseph
  770 F.2d 343· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for rape in the first degree on Count I, but the prosecutor's comments during closing argument did not constitute reversible error for Count II.
• Evans v. State
  473 So. 2d 745· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-06-26 ·cited 6×
  Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to traffic cannabis. They appealed the admission of tape-recorded telephone conversations, arguing the court erred by not requiring one party to testify that the recordings were authorized. The appellate court affirmed the convictions.
• O'Neil v. Great Plains Women's Clinic
  759 F.2d 787· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the jury instructions on the locality rule for medical specialists were erroneous, the error was harmless because the trial focused on factual disputes rather than the standard of care. The court also held that limiting closing arguments to twenty minute
• Lowry v. State
  468 So. 2d 298· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-03-27 ·cited 6×
  Appellant was convicted by jury of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a six-year-old child. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for new trial based on improper prosecutorial comment during closing argument that was fairly susceptible of being construed as a comm
• United States v. Mechanik
  756 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 6×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that a defendant subject to retrial after a mistrial due to a hung jury has no colorable double jeopardy claim appealable before final judgment, following Richardson v. United States.
• Kearse v. State
  464 So. 2d 202· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the arresting officer's comment on the defendant's silence at arrest constitutes reversible error, requiring a new trial.
• Acree v. The Minolta Corp.
  748 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in giving a supplemental jury instruction without consulting counsel, the error was harmless because it did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on
• United States v. Carvalho
  742 F.2d 146· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting ex-spouses' affidavits under hearsay exceptions, as the statements were not against penal interest and lacked trustworthiness, and the error was not harmless.
• United States v. N. Am. Reporting, Inc.
  740 F.2d 50· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding the defense's summary chart, but remanded for a proper determination of whether the prosecutor's notes were producible under the Jencks Act.
• Williams v. Maggio
  727 F.2d 1387· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the state trial court erred by not holding a hearing on the voluntariness of the incriminating statement, the error was harmless because the record supported the statement's voluntariness and there was no evidence of coercion.
• Jacky B. Strickland v. State
  447 So. 2d 322· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-02-21 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Strickland was charged with grand theft and multiple counts of forgery and uttering forged instruments related to fraudulent encyclopedia purchase contracts. The trial court allowed the jury to review non-admitted demonstrative charts during deliberations; Strickland appealed, ar
• State v. Walker
  429 So. 2d 1301· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Florida sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's order suppressing eyewitness identification testimony after an armed robbery. The court denied the petition, finding the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and created a substantial likelihood of m
• McFADDEN v. State
  424 So. 2d 918· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in ordering counsel not to discuss the appellant's testimony during a recess, the error was harmless because the appellant had ample opportunity to confer with counsel before trial resumed.
• Clark v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  693 F.2d 500· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 6×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the magistrate's findings of negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous, and therefore affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Schaefer
  691 F.2d 639· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from an unlawful warrantless search and seizure was not harmless error, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Heater
  689 F.2d 783· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of prior drug sale testimony, while potentially erroneous, was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the jury's acquittal on the count to which it was most relevant. The court also held that statements by a coconspirator made afte
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Bertman
  686 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on the coercion defense erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction in the first place.
• Ira Bruce Miller v. State
  410 So. 2d 557· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-10 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Miller challenges the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties for the trafficking in cocaine charge, despite being convicted only of the lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver. The Fourth DCA affirmed the conviction while
• Eaton v. State
  410 So. 2d 933· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-12-09 ·cited 6×
  Eaton and Gombos appealed convictions arising from a prison escape attempt in which a deputy was killed by a shotgun discharge. Both appellants challenged the trial court's jury instructions regarding co-conspirator statements admitted as hearsay and Eaton challenged his first-de
• Lyles v. Estelle
  658 F.2d 1015· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was erroneously denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation when the trial court forced him to proceed with unwanted counsel.
• Cyril C. Janke and Aileen L. Janke v. Corinthian Gardens, Inc.
  405 So. 2d 740· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiffs appealed from directed verdict and jury verdict in favor of condominium association and developer after plaintiff slipped and fell on wet parking deck. The court affirmed, holding that the association had statutory duty to maintain the deck, expert testimony establishe
• Moyers v. State
  400 So. 2d 769· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-05-28 ·cited 6×
  A trial court must instruct the jury on the maximum and minimum penalties that may be imposed for the offense charged, and failure to do so requires reversal and new trial.
• Holland v. State
  400 So. 2d 767· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-04-10 ·cited 6×
  Wilfred Bernard Holland was convicted of armed robbery and appealed on two grounds: that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of another similar robbery, and that it erred in denying his request for jury instructions on penalties. The Florida District Court of Appeal affir
• United States v. Cletus Charles Foote
  635 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts was not plain error and that any defect in the indictment was harmless.
• Zettler v. Ehrlich
  384 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-17 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Default judgments were properly entered against defendants under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(a) and (b) where the defendants failed to file or serve any authorized responsive pleading or paper within the required time period, and an out-of-state non-attorney's letter did not constitute a
• Peoples Bank OF Indian River Cnty. (proposed new bank) v. State
  378 So. 2d 328· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-01-09 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the Department erred in using data not in the record, this error was harmless because sufficient other competent and substantial evidence supported the denial of the bank application.
• United States v. Knowles
  594 F.2d 753· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a witness's grand jury transcript under the Jencks Act violated the strict harmless error standard, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Ogle
  587 F.2d 938· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the admission of a prior foreign conviction for identity purposes was not prejudicial error.
• The City OF Miami Beach v. Buckley
  363 So. 2d 360· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-09-19 ·cited 6×
  A party who fails to object to jury instructions at trial cannot raise instructional error on appeal.
• Dozier v. State
  361 So. 2d 727· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-02-21 ·cited 6×
  Defendant Dozier was convicted of breaking and entering and appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. The court held that prosecutorial comments on the defendant's invocation of Fifth Amendment rights constitute fundamental constitutional error t
• Seabrook v. State
  348 So. 2d 663· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-08-03 ·cited 6×
  Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault (lesser included offense of aggravated battery) in a shooting case. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of appellant's reputation for peacefulness and tranquility, which was relev
• Lewis v. State
  354 So. 2d 67· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-07-22 ·cited 6×
• In the Interest of I. S. H.
  344 So. 2d 1295· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-04-15 ·cited 6×
  A juvenile adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery appeals, challenging the trial court's use of a prior juvenile adjudication to impeach his trial testimony. The court held that Florida law prohibits impeachment by prior juvenile adjudications, as such adjudications are statuto
• United States v. Williams
  561 F.2d 859· D.C. Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court denied a sua sponte suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• Thomas v. State
  342 So. 2d 991· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-02-01 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court reversed defendant's robbery conviction because prosecutor improperly elicited and commented upon defendant's post-arrest silence, violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• United States v. Van Meerbeke
  548 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the trial judge's silence regarding a witness's drug use was an error, it did not affect the judgment in this specific case.
• Jackson v. State
  328 So. 2d 576· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-03-09 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Ronald Jackson was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny after a jury trial. He appealed challenging the denial of his motions for mistrial based on allegedly prejudicial references to his fingerprints on file and a prosecutor's comment, as well a
• Crawford v. State
  321 So. 2d 559· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-11-14 ·cited 6×
  References to polygraph examinations, including allusions that suggest their results, are inadmissible at trial and constitute reversible error when admitted to rehabilitate a witness's credibility, regardless of the state's intent or the strength of other evidence.
• ROY v. Hall
  521 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state appellate court erred in applying the harmless error doctrine to the admission of the second statement, as it could not be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court also found that the second statement was not improperly admitted
• United States ex rel. Lonnie Davis v. Johnson
  495 F.2d 335· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel when entering his guilty plea, and therefore the plea was voluntary.
• Gordan v. State
  288 So. 2d 295· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-01-18 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of similar fact evidence was proper and that the timing of cautionary instructions is within the trial judge's discretion.
• United States v. Marrero
  486 F.2d 622· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a government file on the defendant as a 'major violator' was impermissibly prejudicial and required reversal.
• United States v. Abell Holiday
  482 F.2d 729· D.C. Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if a lineup was uncounseled, in-court identifications can be admissible if they have an independent source, and references to the lineup at trial can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• United States v. Miramon
  470 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-05 ·cited 6×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if there was an error in admitting evidence obtained from a search, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the identification procedures and assistance of counsel were not improper.
• Sample v. Eyman
  469 F.2d 819· 9th Cir.· 1972-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a written statement taken without counsel after the magistrate determined the defendant was incapable of waiving rights, and the admission of illegally seized evidence, were constitutional errors that were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Carter
  454 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment's use of conjunctive terms and the jury instruction's use of disjunctive terms were proper, and that the prosecutor's question to a defense witness, even if error, was harmless.
• Young v. State OF Md.
  455 F.2d 679· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the trenchcoat, even if illegally seized, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant admitted the act of intercourse and wearing the coat, and the coat's stains did not prejudice his defense.
• Childs v. Cardwell
  452 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of hearsay testimony, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming eyewitness identification and the defendant's failure to object at trial.
• United States v. Watson
  450 F.2d 290· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-01 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the government may have erred in not properly instructing the jury on the limited use of a prior inconsistent statement, such error was harmless.