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

• United States v. Toliver
  541 F.2d 958· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof of multiple conspiracies is not fatal if it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused, and that a defendant's absence from trial due to illness, while a constitutional violati
• United States v. Odell Marshall
  526 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 78×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to enjoin tax levies, for return of property, for dismissal or alternative funds, for extensive discovery, to suppress evidence seized incident to arrest, or to disclose informant identities, and that the searc
• McCRAY v. State
  919 So. 2d 647· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-01-26 ·cited 77×·via Harmless Error Review
  The trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence proffered to refresh a witness's recollection and for impeachment purposes.
• Snelgrove v. State
  921 So. 2d 560· Fla.· 2005-11-10 ·cited 77×·via Harmless Error Standard
  David Snelgrove was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the guilt-phase convictions but reversed the death sentences because the jury rendered a single, undifferentiated advisory sentence rathe
• State v. LEE
  531 So. 2d 133· Fla.· 1988-09-01 ·cited 76×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The Florida Supreme Court held that erroneous admission of evidence regarding collateral crimes requires reversal when the state fails to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the jury verdict, even if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The Cou
• United States v. Vicente Meneses-Davila
  580 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-25 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the prosecutor's repeated comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence, used to impeach his trial testimony, constituted reversible error because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Quintana
  508 F.2d 867· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 76×
  The court affirmed convictions for Suarez and Alonso, but reversed Quintana's conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court found wiretap evidence admissible despite some procedural issues, applied the harmless error doctrine to illegally obtained evidence, and rejected clai
• United States v. McCORD
  509 F.2d 334· D.C. Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 76×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while some trial errors occurred, they were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal given the strong evidence of guilt.
• WAY v. State
  67 So. 2d 321· Fla.· 1953-07-31 ·cited 76×
  Charlie Way and Essie Way were convicted of theft after a jury trial. The Florida Supreme Court reversed their convictions, holding that the prosecutor's remarks to the jury impermissibly commented on their failure to testify, violating Florida Statute § 918.09, and that the harm
• United States v. James ("Jake") Rohrer
  708 F.2d 429· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 75×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for drug offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• Clark v. State
  336 So. 2d 468· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-28 ·cited 75×
  Clark appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny based on improper testimony by an arresting officer that referenced Clark's invocation of his Miranda rights and refusal to make statements. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that
• Capehart v. State
  583 So. 2d 1009· Fla.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 74×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Gregory Capehart was convicted of burglary and first-degree murder in the 1988 killing of Marlene Reeves in Dade City, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence but vacated the burglary sentence for resentencing under sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Stratton
  649 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the Third Judicial Circuit could constitute a RICO enterprise, but reversed convictions for defendants Harrell and Stratton due to an unconstitutional change of venue. The court also reversed convictions for all defendants due
• United States v. Drebin
  557 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 74×
  The court held that while the search warrant was overly broad and authorized an unlawful general search, the admission of the seized evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found sufficient evidence to sustain convictions for copyright infringement,
• Morrissey v. Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am.
  544 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-24 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the submission of the § 101(a)(5) claim under the Landrum-Griffin Act was improper and not harmless error, requiring a new trial on that count. It also addressed issues related to malicious prosecution.
• Song Jook SUH v. Rosenberg
  437 F.2d 1098· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 74×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  A prematurely filed notice of appeal becomes effective when the appealable judgment becomes final, and the appellate court has jurisdiction. The denial of a cosmetology instructor's petition for professional classification was not an abuse of discretion.
• Fisher v. The Agios Nicolaos V
  628 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-10 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction, applying United States law, and that any errors in damage computation were harmless.
• United States v. Clark
  559 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to stop and search the truck based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the subsequent search of the station wagon was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
• Thompson v. State
  328 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 73×
  Where a jury unanimously recommends life imprisonment after full consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the trial court must express more concise and particular reasons based on evidence that cannot reasonably be interpreted to favor mitigation to override the
• Ault v. State
  53 So. 3d 175· Fla.· 2010-09-30 ·cited 72×·via Harmless Error Review
  Howard Steven Ault was sentenced to death for the murders of two young sisters after his prior death sentences were vacated for improper jury selection. On this second direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences while finding that the trial court committ
• United States v. Bennett
  848 F.2d 1134· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 72×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the admission of William Bennett's prior drug smuggling convictions was proper under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, and that the use of a single interpreter for multiple Spanish-speaking defendants did not violate their statutory or constitutional rights. The court
• Dickerson v. State OF Ala.
  667 F.2d 1364· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 72×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the denial of a continuance to secure an alibi witness, a police officer, violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to compulsory process.
• United States v. Monroe
  552 F.2d 860· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the republication of controlled substance schedules was sufficient, the evidence supported the conspiracy conviction, the insanity defense was properly rejected, prosecutorial misconduct claims were either valid but harmless or denied, and the concurrent sente
• United States v. Warner
  428 F.2d 730· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the trial court's cursory examination was insufficient to ensure an intelligent and knowing waiver of counsel.
• Brulay v. United States
  383 F.2d 345· 9th Cir.· 1967-08-09 ·cited 72×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that evidence seized by Mexican officials is admissible in a U.S. court, and statements made to foreign officials are admissible if voluntary under Fifth Amendment standards, even if obtained during prolonged interrogation.
• Davis v. State OF Ala.
  596 F.2d 1214· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 71×
  The court held that defense attorneys' failure to investigate and develop potential insanity defense evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Flanagan v. State
  586 So. 2d 1085· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-07-19 ·cited 70×·via Chapman Harmless Error Test
  Dennis Flanagan was convicted of sexually battering his mentally retarded 9-year-old daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal challenges the admission of the child victim's statements to her examining physician regarding her father's identity as the abuser, expert
• United States v. Fleming
  594 F.2d 598· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 70×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions from co-defendants was not a Bruton violation, and any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence. However, for one defendant, the admission of co-defendants' confessions was prejudicial and warranted a new tri
• Gilford v. State
  313 So. 2d 729· Fla.· 1975-04-09 ·cited 70×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense (petit larceny) when the evidence presented supported only the greater offense (felony breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny). The Court clarif
• United States v. Brown
  451 F.2d 1231· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-23 ·cited 70×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that admitting documents summarizing the government's case to the jury, allowing testimony about defendants being on a 'primary target list,' and permitting the prosecutor to vouch for a witness's credibility constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Hornstein
  176 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-28 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the jury was warranted in finding the defendant willfully attempted to evade taxes, and that any errors concerning one count were not prejudicial due to the sentence imposed.
• United States v. Rivera
  900 F.2d 1462· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 69×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while there were trial errors, the cumulative effect did not warrant reversal due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice. Resentencing is necessary.
• Columbia Basin Land Prot. Ass'n v. Schlesinger
  643 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-20 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the majority opinion erred in deciding moot issues and in its interpretation of NEPA and FLPMA.
• United States v. Partin
  493 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the total financial benefits paid to material witnesses and the failure to provide specific jury instructions on the impeachment of witnesses constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Fielding
  645 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of out-of-court statements by alleged co-conspirators, which were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, constituted reversible error under the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Burton
  584 F.2d 485· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance based on the defendant's desire to retain new counsel, particularly when the withdrawal of the original counsel was due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control.
• United States v. Sol Mayer
  556 F.2d 245· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court's undue restriction of the defendant's cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses, concerning their motivation for testifying, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, and this error, compounded by a jury ins
• United States v. Hoffman
  415 F.2d 14· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that evidence of prior transactions was admissible to prove intent and motive, the court properly handled juror publicity, instructions were adequate, cross-examination was proper, prosecutorial argument was harmless error, and sentencing was permissible, though re
• Truehill v. State
  211 So. 3d 930· Fla.· 2017-02-23 ·cited 67×·via Harmless Error Review
  Quentin Truehill was convicted of the kidnapping and murder of Vincent Binder during a multi-state crime spree and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, addressing various appellate claims including jury selection, evidence adm
• Ignacio v. People OF the Territory OF Guam
  413 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-07 ·cited 67×
  The court held that while the admission of co-defendants' extrajudicial statements at a joint trial may violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause, such a violation can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming. The court also held that the appe
• Baker v. State
  202 So. 2d 563· Fla.· 1967-09-20 ·cited 67×
  Baker and Dalton were convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death for the beating death of Francis MacKenzie during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court reversed their convictions on the ground that their joint representation by court-appointed counsel violated their Sixth
• United States v. Poole
  794 F.2d 462· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 66×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The district court did not err in admitting evidence that the defendant Poole gave a false name to an FBI agent, and the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.
• United States v. Velasquez
  772 F.2d 1348· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the misjoinder of Galvan's heroin charges with the other defendants' charges violated Rule 8(b) and was not harmless error, compelling a new trial for all appellants on all counts. The court also found the retaliation statute constitutional.
• von Carter v. State
  468 So. 2d 276· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-03-13 ·cited 66×
  Randy Von Carter was convicted of robbery and burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court departed from sentencing guidelines based primarily on improper factors without suff
• Tejeda-Mata v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  626 F.2d 721· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 66×
  The denial of an interpreter in a deportation proceeding, which prevents an alien from understanding the proceedings, is a fundamental due process violation that cannot be reviewed for harmless error and was indeed harmful in this case.
• United States v. Corey
  566 F.2d 429· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 66×
  The court held that while the admission of prior act evidence may have been erroneous, it was harmless error, and other alleged errors did not require reversal.
• United States v. Jennings
  527 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-26 ·cited 66×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a cautionary instruction regarding co-conspirator hearsay testimony, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt.
• United States v. Germaine Haili
  443 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-20 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for smuggling, illegal transportation, and conspiracy to smuggle and transport marijuana were affirmed, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings.
• Bradford v. United States
  413 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-13 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the admissibility of handwriting exemplars from an arrested suspect is a question for the judge, and that denying indigent defendants access to necessary expert witnesses is reversible error.
• Frank v. Blackburn
  646 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-17 ·cited 65×·via Harmless Error Review
  A defendant cannot be punished for exercising their right to trial, but a longer sentence than offered in a rejected plea bargain does not automatically constitute such punishment.