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

• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  751 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's orders permitting railroad abandonment were sustainable under customary standards, and the petitioners' arguments for continued service were insufficient.
• Amilio Amatucci v. Del. & Hudson Ry. Co.
  745 F.2d 180· 2d Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the district court erred by admitting prejudicial testimony about other engineers suffering heart attacks, which affected the railroad's substantial rights.
• Brock v. State
  446 So. 2d 1170· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-03-15 ·cited 2×
  Appellate court reversed burglary and grand theft convictions because prosecutor improperly commented on defendant's failure to testify, violating the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Guyon
  717 F.2d 1536· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense was error, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Avera v. State
  436 So. 2d 1115· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-09-08 ·cited 2×
  Robert Avera appeals his escape conviction on the ground that his court-appointed assistant public defender was denied leave to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. The court reverses and remands because Holloway v. Arkansas presumes prejudice when a conflict of interest is sh
• Carter v. State
  435 So. 2d 900· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-07-18 ·cited 2×
• POE v. State
  431 So. 2d 266· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-05-12 ·cited 2×
  In this grand theft appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction because the trial court failed to conduct a proper Richardson inquiry before allowing the state to call an unlisted witness on rebuttal after excluding the same witness from the case-in
• United States v. Jones
  697 F.2d 989· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting evidence of Keel's post-robbery clothing purchases was error without injury, and other evidentiary rulings were proper.
• Guar. Abstract & Title Co., Inc. v. United States
  696 F.2d 793· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of unreasonable earnings accumulation to the jury, nor in refusing to allow inspection of a witness's personal note.
• Holtzen v. United States
  694 F.2d 1129· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a drug manufacturer's booklet and the seizure of a trunk were not grounds for reversal, as any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The denial of a continuance was also not an abuse of discretion.
• Adams v. State
  423 So. 2d 439· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-01 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Ralph Adams appeals his conviction for conspiracy to traffic marijuana, arguing that improper joinder of his co-defendant James Brunswick (who faced an additional cocaine delivery charge) requires reversal. The Fourth District Court of Appeal holds that joinder errors based on pl
• Turner Thomas v. Anderson
  675 F.2d 781· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-22 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  Even if jury instructions were constitutionally infirm, any error was harmless because the assailant's intent was not in issue and the facts provided ample evidence of intent.
• Anderson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  670 F.2d 1339· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's conduct in pressuring alibi witnesses to change their testimony constituted a constitutional error that was not harmless.
• United States v. Honorable Fred M. Winner
  666 F.2d 447· 10th Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus to overturn the trial court's order granting a new trial.
• United States v. Thomas Halliday (80-5195)
  658 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the FBI's reinitiation of interrogation after Gallagher invoked his right to counsel did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights because counsel was made available and his waiver was knowing and intelligent. Any Bruton error was harmless beyond a reasonable dou
• Narciso R. Vera v. State
  405 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-07-17 ·cited 2×
• Fairweather v. State
  400 So. 2d 1279· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-06-25 ·cited 2×
  Appellant appealed his sexual battery conviction on four grounds. The appellate court affirmed findings on constitutionality of the relevant statute, the in-court identification procedure, and exclusion of defense counsel from a lineup, but reversed and remanded because the trial
• DOE v. State
  405 So. 2d 994· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-06-01 ·cited 2×
• Clark v. State
  400 So. 2d 474· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-04-15 ·cited 2×
• Heggs v. State
  397 So. 2d 369· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-04-15 ·cited 2×
  Appellant Heggs was convicted at trial despite conclusive evidence of guilt, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury on penalties as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a). Although the appellate court determined the error was harmless and did not injurio
• Nelms v. State
  397 So. 2d 372· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-04-15 ·cited 2×
  Nelms was convicted of an offense but the trial court failed to provide a jury instruction on penalties as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a). Although the appellate court found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of
• Byrd v. United States
  631 F.2d 1158· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of willful failure to pay withholding taxes and that any error in limiting the use of deposition testimony was harmless.
• United States v. Reed
  631 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 2×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that a defendant testifying before a grand jury, who is not in custody and not under indictment, is not entitled to Miranda warnings, and their testimony can be used against them at trial.
• Hampton v. State
  386 So. 2d 587· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-08-05 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Miller
  603 F.2d 109· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, as required by statute, was not harmless error.
• Fernandez v. State
  370 So. 2d 818· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-01 ·cited 2×
  Appellant's conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony and grand larceny through staged automobile accident fraud was affirmed; no Bruton error resulted from joinder, and admission of accident report was proper or harmless.
• United States v. Spaulding
  588 F.2d 669· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-18 ·cited 2×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the denial of the habeas petition was proper due to a valid speedy trial waiver, and that the denial of funds for defense experts and the admission of evidence regarding a gun were harmless errors.
• In re Harper v. Dist. Dir. of Internal Revenue
  580 F.2d 165· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-15 ·cited 2×
  A tax return filed more than two and one-half years late does not qualify as 'a return required by law' for purposes of the Bankruptcy Act, thus precluding discharge of the tax liability.
• Elton Ray Bell v. State
  360 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-08-03 ·cited 2×
  Elton Ray Bell was convicted by jury of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of his speedy trial motion but reversed on the ground that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct t
• State v. Abreau
  363 So. 2d 1063· Fla.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified that trial courts need not instruct juries on lesser-included offenses that are two or more steps removed from the charged offense, rejecting the Third District Court of Appeal's interpretation that Lomax v. State had overruled DeLaine v. State
• United States v. Urciuoli
  575 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 2×
  Cancelled certificates that appeared valid were still considered 'securities' under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and any variance in proof of transportation was harmless.
• Jackson v. State
  355 So. 2d 137· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on aggravated and simple assault, which were lesser included offenses supported by the information and evidence, constituted reversible error.
• Holland v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  353 So. 2d 618· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-12-20 ·cited 2×
  Under FELA, an employee need show only that the employer's negligence played any part, however slight, in producing the injury, not that it was the sole or "but for" cause. A jury instruction that included "but for" language once, even if erroneous, does not constitute reversible
• United States v. Hutton
  558 F.2d 1265· 6th Cir.· 1977-07-14 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by allowing a belated notice of alibi demand, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Washington v. State
  343 So. 2d 908· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-03-08 ·cited 2×
  A prematurely filed notice of appeal is not subject to dismissal but remains in limbo until the judgment is rendered.
• Simmonds Precision Prods., Inc. v. The United States
  546 F.2d 886· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's recommended decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and allowing the defendant's cross-motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Board's decision was legally erroneous.
• United States v. Floyd
  535 F.2d 1299· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court denied a suggestion for rehearing en banc, with dissenting judges arguing for rehearing to address the panel's misinterpretation of precedent regarding voir dire examination for racial prejudice.
• In re Mullendore v. Mullendore
  527 F.2d 1031· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that failure to comply with General Order 44 or list a contingent fee contract as an executory contract does not bar attorneys' fees, and that while the trial court erred in its interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 155, the fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Walker v. State
  319 So. 2d 642· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-10-07 ·cited 2×
  Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for child abuse where defendant's confession was admissible despite trial court's failure to make express voluntariness finding, as the record showed no coercion and the denial of the suppression motion implied voluntariness.
• United States v. Bell
  510 F.2d 1095· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense impeachment evidence, admitting evidence of other crimes, or in the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to testify.
• Moore v. United States
  512 F.2d 1255· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possessing a prohibited firearm was valid, despite a variance between the indictment and the proof, because the weapon qualified as an 'any other weapon' under federal law and the variance was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Celcer
  500 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of knowing participation in the conspiracy and that any prosecutorial misconduct or trial errors were harmless.
• United States v. Davis
  484 F.2d 937· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the registrant's claim of a prior leg injury did not present a prima facie case for reclassification, and the failure to refer him to a medical advisor was harmless error.
• Adams Mach. & Tool Co., Inc. v. MFB Mut. Ins. Co.
  479 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that submitting the issue of whether the sprinkler system was cut off to the jury was an error that was not harmless, requiring a new trial on liability. However, errors regarding damages were harmless.
• United States v. Tillman
  470 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the government's questioning about the appellant's pre-trial silence was an error, it was harmless error and not prejudicial enough to warrant reversal.
• United States v. James
  473 F.2d 115· D.C. Cir.· 1972-11-13 ·cited 2×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that even if Fourth Amendment claims were cognizable under § 2255 and the seized evidence was unlawfully obtained, its admission was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, thus affirming the denial of the motion.
• United States v. Jordan
  454 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments to the jury and the cross-examination of reputation witnesses constituted reversible error, and that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the offense.
• United States v. Lewis
  448 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-08 ·cited 2×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the conviction for theft from the United States mail should be affirmed due to overwhelming admissible evidence, despite some close rulings.
• United States v. Bethea
  446 F.2d 30· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-05 ·cited 2×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that evidence seized was admissible.
• United States v. Hargus Smith, Jr.
  441 F.2d 608· 6th Cir.· 1971-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of Mullins' inculpatory statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that errors regarding jury instructions and evidence admission could not be considered due to lack of objection.