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

• Scott v. State
  388 So. 2d 243· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-20
  Florida appellate court reversed a receiving stolen property conviction because the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecution elicited testimony about the defendant's post-arrest silence, a constitutional violation that could not be cured by jury instr
• Cadena v. Estelle
  611 F.2d 1385· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  Any error in arraigning the appellant without counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because no substantial prejudice occurred.
• Clark v. State
  378 So. 2d 1315· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-15 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  A violation of the collateral crimes rule may be considered harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the defendant's substantial rights were not prejudiced.
• United States v. Evodio Cortes
  600 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-17 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that excluding evidence of the defendant's appearance and vehicle condition was prejudicial error because it was relevant to the element of fraudulent intent under 18 U.S.C. § 912.
• United States v. Saragosa Lopez Vela
  606 F.2d 1224· D.C. Cir.· 1979-07-20
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in not specifying the maximum special parole term, the error was harmless because the petitioner received only the mandatory minimum term. The statute does not violate the rule requiring advice of maximum penalties.
• Miller v. State
  371 So. 2d 687· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-05-31
• Prophet v. Duckworth
  580 F.2d 926· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-11
  The introduction of an uncounseled prior conviction, even for impeachment, is constitutional error, but such error can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury would have convicted regardless of the evidence.
• United States v. Kermit Frazier, Jr.
  580 F.2d 229· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning of defense counsel during opening statements, which forced counsel to choose between revealing privileged client information or appearing evasive, constituted prejudicial error.
• United States v. Joe Union
  570 F.2d 816· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-21
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because there was substantial independent evidence of the defendant's illicit association with the declarants, and any potential error would have been harmless.
• Bradley v. Cowan
  561 F.2d 1213· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-24 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the warrantless search of the hotel room violated the Fourth Amendment, but the admission of the seized evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to other strong evidence of guilt.
• Theophilus A. Martin v. State
  356 So. 2d 320· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-07-06
  Theophilus Martin's conviction for aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm was reversed because the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him about his failure to make an exculpatory statement to police after being advised of his Miranda rights, violating establish
• Cancler v. Maggio
  550 F.2d 1034· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding an extraneous similar offense, even if improper, did not violate fundamental fairness and constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• State v. Brown
  343 So. 2d 629· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-02-11 ·via Harmless Error Rule
• Hayes v. Cowan
  535 F.2d 351· 6th Cir.· 1976-05-14 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if the lineup procedure was constitutionally deficient, the conviction was valid due to ample basis for independent identification and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Spigner v. State
  304 So. 2d 496· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-12-12
  Appellant Spigner was convicted of second-degree murder after trial. He appealed arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempt. The court affirmed, holding that any error was harmless because the jury convicted of the hig
• Fulton Distrib. Co. OF Fla. v. First Nat'l Bank OF EAU Gallie
  301 So. 2d 116· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-10-04
• United States ex rel. William Cadogan v. LaVALLEE
  502 F.2d 824· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, affirming the denial.
• United States ex rel. Russell Davis Mealey, Jr. v. The State of Del.
  489 F.2d 993· 3d Cir.· 1974-01-02 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the suggestive photographic identification, even if cumulative, could not be deemed harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to the potential for undue jury reliance on such dramatic testimony.
• Williams v. State
  291 So. 2d 240· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-12-19 ·via Harmless Error Rule
• Van Griffin v. State
  280 So. 2d 476· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-07-12
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the defendant's alleged actions was reversible error due to the weakness of the other evidence.
• Davis v. State
  267 So. 2d 85· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-10-10
• United States v. Plunk
  456 F.2d 1027· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-25 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of agent testimony regarding initials on equipment was harmless error, even if improperly admitted.
• Racanelli v. United Fed'n OF Postal Clerks (Plaintiff Intervenor)
  456 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-24
  The court held that the appellant's dismissal from employment was in substantial compliance with procedural requirements and supported by substantial evidence, and that any procedural errors were harmless.
• Rowe v. State
  250 So. 2d 920· Fla. 2d DCA· 1971-06-30 ·via Harmless Error Rule
• United States v. Hubert
  445 F.2d 1328· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-18
  The court held that even if admitting evidence of no further thefts after defendant's arrest was an error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Simpson v. Clark
  249 So. 2d 78· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-06-15
• Williams v. State
  249 So. 2d 686· Fla.· 1971-05-13
• United States v. Price
  441 F.2d 1092· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-30
  The court held that the seizure of the package was valid due to probable cause and that any error in admitting pre-arrest statements was harmless.
• Armsbury v. United States
  443 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-16
• United States v. Leon
  441 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-30
  The court held that the conspiracy and overt acts occurred within the United States, and evidence seized was admissible.
• Gray v. Ellsworth
  438 F.2d 130· 9th Cir.· 1971-02-03 ·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the constitutional error of admitting identification testimony from a one-man lineup without counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Pardo
  436 F.2d 968· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-27
  The court held that the search of the automobile was constitutional and provided sufficient evidence for conviction, rendering any potential error in the house search harmless.
• Whitty v. State OF Wis. & Wilbur J. Schmidt
  436 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-30 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the admission of evidence or the procedures used at his trial, and that any errors were harmless.
• Myricks v. United States
  434 F.2d 629· 6th Cir.· 1970-12-04
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court did not err in denying his motion to vacate sentence.
• United States v. Richards
  430 F.2d 1240· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the admission of testimony that a statement was taken from the defendant without showing Miranda compliance was error, but that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Williams v. State
  238 So. 2d 137· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-07-30
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash the indictment, admitting evidence of prior convictions, allowing inquiry into the defendant's failure to take a lie detector test, or in its rulings on the sufficiency of evidence and closing argument
• Earnest Norman v. Nelson
  431 F.2d 1184· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the prisoner's confrontation clause claim was waived by failure to object at trial, and any error in admitting evidence was harmless.
• DON Kemper Co., Inc. v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co.
  425 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in admitting or excluding evidence or in the jury charge, and thus affirmed the judgment.
• Worth Ins. Co. v. Seldon P. Gammons
  228 So. 2d 127· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-11-20
  The court held that striking the defendant's lack-of-permission defense was reversible error, and the trial court should have granted leave to amend the answer.
• Otey v. United States
  417 F.2d 559· D.C. Cir.· 1969-09-10
  The conviction for possession of marijuana is reversed based on the privilege against self-incrimination, while the conviction for possession of dangerous drugs is affirmed.
• Winford Gerald Caswell v. United States
  414 F.2d 38· 10th Cir.· 1969-08-19
  The court held that while the restriction on cross-examination of a government witness may have been erroneous, it was harmless error and did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• Sellars v. Logan Towing Co., Inc.
  414 F.2d 852· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions and admission of evidence were proper and did not constitute prejudicial error, affirming the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Brook
  414 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-23 ·via Harmless Error Analysis (Kotteakos V. United States)
  The court held that while hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted, it did not affect the jury's verdict, and the conviction for evasion was proper.
• Pearson v. State
  223 So. 2d 736· Fla.· 1969-06-18
• Downie v. Burke
  408 F.2d 343· 7th Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if the prosecutor's remarks were improper, they were not so inflammatory as to deny the petitioner a fair trial or violate his constitutional rights.
• In re Est. of N. W. Dobbins
  215 So. 2d 314· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-11-07
  This case affirms a lower court's order despite the executor's failure to file a complete inventory of the decedent's assets, deeming the error harmless. The court emphasized that filing a complete inventory is a mandatory statutory requirement.
• State v. Couch
  19 Fla. Supp. 1· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1961-11-07
  James Lee Couch appealed his conviction for driving under the influence in Dade County metropolitan court, challenging his right to a jury trial and the sufficiency of the evidence. The circuit court affirmed the conviction, holding that DUI offenders are not entitled to jury tri
• United States v. McCall
  291 F.2d 859· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-26 ·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of seized documents was harmless error because the defendant admitted writing the letter, and that the prosecution's closing statement did not constitute reversible error.
• Buenaventura v. United States
  291 F.2d 86· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-31
  The court held that while the district judge's questioning of the defendants violated their Fifth Amendment rights, this error did not prejudice them at trial, and their convictions were affirmed based on uncontradicted evidence.
• Starr v. United States
  264 F.2d 377· D.C. Cir.· 1958-10-17 ·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a statement taken from an arrested person during an unnecessary delay in arraignment is inadmissible under Mallory v. United States, even if exculpatory, and its admission can be prejudicial error.