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. Broadhead
  413 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-15 ·cited 46×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that even though the lineup was conducted in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the in-court identification was admissible because it had an independent basis. The court also found that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure
• Holt v. United States
  342 F.2d 163· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-12 ·cited 46×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of prior mistaken identifications in similar cases, as it was relevant to the defendant's mistaken identity defense.
• Narberto Angelo Portomene v. United States
  221 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that denying the defendant's request to disclose the identity of an informer, who was a direct participant in the alleged drug sales, was reversible error.
• Nelson v. United States (two cases)
  208 F.2d 505· D.C. Cir.· 1953-07-02 ·cited 46×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that evidence obtained from a defendant under duress and coercion during a Senate Committee investigation is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment, and this error requires reversal of convictions for all jointly tried defendants.
• Stephens v. State
  92 Fla. 43· Fla.· 1926-06-26 ·cited 46×
  M. Y. Stephens was convicted of robbery and challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the description of stolen property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the failure to prove the specific composition of money taken (paper bills and silver co
• Graham v. State
  207 So. 3d 135· Fla.· 2016-09-01 ·cited 45×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts on whether a defendant can be convicted multiple times under the same sexual offense statute for distinct acts committed in a single criminal episode. The Court held that under the 'distinct acts' test from Blo
• Puleio v. Vose
  830 F.2d 1197· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 45×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the appellant's claims were procedurally barred or lacked constitutional merit, affirming the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. McKENZIE
  768 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their claims regarding Brady/Jencks Act violations and prosecutorial misconduct were without merit.
• Solina v. United States
  709 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 45×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  Representation by an unlicensed attorney, even if unknowingly, is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel that cannot be treated as harmless error.
• Emery J. Hill v. Spiegel, Inc.
  708 F.2d 233· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 45×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under the ADEA and that certain employee statements admitted as hearsay were inadmissible. The court also found that liquidated damages are mandatory upon a finding of willfulness.
• United States v. Shepherd
  576 F.2d 719· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the judge's remarks after the jury verdict did not prejudice the defendant's right to poll the jury, and that the defendant was not entitled to two attorneys because the crime was no longer a capital offense after Furman v. Georgia removed the possibility of t
• Lavigne v. State
  349 So. 2d 178· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-06-01 ·cited 45×
  Gary Lavigne appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony from Officer Sciadini regarding an oral statement Lavigne made to him. The State violated discovery rules by failing to disclose Sciadini as a witness to Lavigne's
• Settles v. State
  75 Fla. 296· Fla.· 1918-02-21 ·cited 45×
  This case reviews a conviction for perjury. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the indictment sufficiently alleged the defendant was lawfully required to depose the truth and that no reversible errors were committed during the trial.
• United States v. Petit
  841 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is valid even if the substantive offense (possessing stolen goods) was factually impossible because the goods were not actually stolen, as long as the defendants believed they were stolen. The court also held that
• Clark v. Dugger
  834 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 44×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's request for a psychiatric expert because the defendant failed to make a preliminary showing that his sanity was a significant factor at trial. The court also found no constitutional violations regarding ju
• United States v. Janoe
  720 F.2d 1156· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the voluntariness of the defendant's confession as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a).
• United States v. Cochran
  697 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirators' statements, the variance between the indictment and proof, the jury's viewing of an inadmissible transcript, nondisclosure of certain materials, prosecutorial remarks, and the admission of photographs did not constitute revers
• United States v. Alessandrello
  637 F.2d 131· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendants' absence from a small portion of the jury selection process, where individual jurors were questioned in a small anteroom, did not constitute reversible error because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Polk v. The Sch. Bd. OF Polk Cnty.
  373 So. 2d 960· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-08-10 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  This case addresses whether the Polk County School Board properly adopted a new high school attendance plan for Lakeland that would reassign some students to different schools. The court affirmed the school board's decision, finding it was a valid exercise of quasi-legislative di
• Wilson v. Hon. Robert J. Henderson
  584 F.2d 1185· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-20 ·cited 44×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the detective's continued interrogation after the suspect invoked his right to remain silent violated Miranda and Massiah principles.
• United States v. Davis
  564 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Act is constitutional, and a physician can be convicted of distributing controlled substances even if government agents, not patients, ultimately filled the prescriptions.
• United States v. Jasper Wycoff, Jr.
  545 F.2d 679· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-15 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while eliciting testimony about an arrestee's post-arrest silence and request for counsel was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence and prompt jury admonitions. The court also found that a change in jury instructions wit
• Johnson v. State
  314 So. 2d 248· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-06-12 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Willie Johnson Jr. was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing a victim in a knife altercation. The appellate court reversed the conviction based on two trial errors: the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on third-degree murder, a
• Vaccaro v. United States
  461 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-12 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the Leary decision, which struck down a statutory presumption regarding knowledge of illegal marijuana importation, must be applied retroactively. The court also established a harmless error rule for cases where the unconstitutional presumption was used.
• United States v. Butler
  426 F.2d 1275· 1st Cir.· 1970-06-03 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that the in-court identifications were admissible as they had an independent basis, and remanded the speedy trial issue due to uncertainty regarding counsel's representation and the defendant's awareness of his rights.
• Coleman v. United States
  420 F.2d 616· D.C. Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that while the officers may not have had probable cause for arrest initially, their actions were justified by reasonable suspicion for investigation and subsequent discovery of evidence.
• State v. Galasso
  217 So. 2d 326· Fla.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 44×
  The Supreme Court reviewed a District Court's reversal of marijuana possession and cultivation convictions, focusing on the admissibility of evidence seized during a search and the defendants' trial testimony.
• Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Hercules Constr. Co.
  385 F.2d 13· 8th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
  A surety's liability is joint and several, allowing suit against the surety alone even if the principal is not formally found liable in the same action. The method of calculating damages based on actual extra costs incurred due to the breach is permissible if reasonable.
• Lewis v. United States
  340 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment counts were sufficient and that any Jencks Act violation was harmless error due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Maxwell M. Wright
  312 F.2d 655· 8th Cir.· 1963-02-04 ·cited 44×·via Harmless Error Rule
• Tomley v. United States
  250 F.2d 549· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-26 ·cited 44×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to renew his motion for acquittal after presenting his own evidence, and that other alleged errors were either not properly preserved for appeal or lacked merit.
• Wheatley v. United States
  159 F.2d 599· 4th Cir.· 1946-12-31 ·cited 44×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence were impermissibly argumentative and prejudiced the defendant, requiring reversal.
• Wardell Riley v. Louie L. Wainwright
  517 So. 2d 656· Fla.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 43×·via Harmless Error Rule
  Florida Supreme Court granted habeas corpus relief to a death row inmate, Wardell Riley, finding that his 1976 jury sentencing recommendation violated Lockett v. Ohio because the jury was improperly restricted to considering only statutory mitigating factors rather than all relev
• Miller v. C.L. Norvell
  775 F.2d 1572· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the jury instructions and Fla.Stat. § 713.34(3) created an unconstitutional mandatory rebuttable presumption regarding intent to defraud, and this error was not harmless.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.
  736 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 43×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the disputed contract provision is susceptible to a lawful interpretation by an arbitrator, and therefore the employer must arbitrate the dispute. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the employer's motions to dismiss.
• Holmes v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  734 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 43×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the use of prior witness statements was harmless error, the safety expert's testimony was admissible, and the jury's award of damages for willful refusal of maintenance and cure was supported by evidence. However, the award of maintenance and cure beyond the d
• United States v. Baker
  693 F.2d 183· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 43×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that while the admission of certain claim forms into evidence was error, it was harmless error, and the defendant's other arguments regarding the indictment and jury instructions lacked merit.
• Dietz v. Warden
  640 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 43×·via Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard
  A jury instruction creating a burden-shifting presumption of intent violates due process and requires federal habeas relief, even if not objected to at trial, provided the petitioner can show cause for the failure to object.
• Blatch v. State
  216 So. 2d 261· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-12-03 ·cited 43×
  Harold Blatch appealed his 1949 murder conviction, claiming insufficient evidence, improper jury instruction on insanity, and improper admission of his confession. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the guilty v
• Porter v. United States
  258 F.2d 685· D.C. Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the admission of the first statement was not an error, and while the second statement's admissibility was debatable, it was not material to the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Andrews Bruce Campbell
  874 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 42×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding no plain error in the reasonable doubt instruction and that the entrapment and Sixth Amendment instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Chavez-Vernaza
  844 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-28 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Chavez did not meet his burden for disclosure under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(c) because he did not allege the prosecutor still had possession of the financial records.
• Carroll v. State
  497 So. 2d 253· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-10 ·cited 42×·via Harmless Error Rule
  John Carroll was convicted of third-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery based largely on testimony from a witness with a learning disability whose credibility was bolstered by a detective's recitation of the witness's prior consistent statement. The Florida appellate
• United States v. Guinn Dutton Hodges
  770 F.2d 1475· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 42×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's subsequent extortion attempt was reversible error because it was highly prejudicial and of slight probative value.
• Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union & Drug Emp'r Pension & Tr. Fund
  735 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 42×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  Attorneys are entitled to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before sanctions are imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• United States v. Primrose
  718 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 42×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the mailings of invoices and warrants were sufficiently related to the scheme to defraud to support mail fraud convictions, and that the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. McDONALD
  620 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 42×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's attorney being present during the search of his home impermissibly penalized the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and constituted reversible error.
• Isadore Hodges, Jr. v. Rose
  570 F.2d 643· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-14 ·cited 42×
  The admission of one defendant's redacted confession, which still implicitly implicated the codefendant, violated the Bruton rule, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Taxe
  540 F.2d 961· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the 1971 Sound Recording Amendment is constitutional and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were largely proper, though the imposition of prosecution costs on one defendant was vacated.
• United States v. Thaggard
  477 F.2d 626· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-16 ·cited 42×·via Harmless Error Rule
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to conduct a gambling business and to obstruct law enforcement were supported by sufficient evidence and that various trial errors were harmless.