Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)

31 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Davis v. State
  461 So. 2d 67· Fla.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 169×
  Allen Davis appeals his convictions for three counts of first-degree murder and three death sentences in a case involving the shooting and beating deaths of a woman and her two young daughters. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the convictions and sentences after reviewing Davis'
• United States v. Basurto
  497 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 169×
  The court held that federal prosecutors have a duty, under the court's supervisory power, to notify the grand jury when an indictment is based on perjured testimony.
• United States v. Bennett
  848 F.2d 1134· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-07 ·cited 72×
  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
• United States v. Fleming
  594 F.2d 598· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 70×
  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
• Nardell U. Carter v. McCARTHY
  806 F.2d 1373· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 63×
• United States v. Frazin
  780 F.2d 1461· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 59×
  The court held that evidence obtained in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act is not subject to suppression under the court's supervisory powers, and that ex parte communication with a deadlocked jury, while error, was harmless in this case.
• United States v. Valdez
  594 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the false employment letters were material statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and while the materiality issue should have been submitted to the jury, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Adams
  446 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-07 ·cited 56×
  The admission of hearsay testimony implicating the defendant, even though falling under a recognized hearsay exception, did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the declarant's statement was not crucial or devastating, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States ex rel. Michael O'Connor v. The State OF NEW Jersey & Howard Yeager
  405 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1969-01-02 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the introduction of post-indictment incriminating statements made without counsel violated the Sixth Amendment, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bustamante v. Eyman
  456 F.2d 269· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 47×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the replay of electronically recorded instructions in the defendant's absence was not an error of constitutional dimension and, even if it were, it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Turquitt
  557 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior misconduct not resulting in a conviction, used for impeachment, was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Gillespie
  852 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's alleged homosexual relationship, expert testimony on child molester characteristics, and testimony concerning anatomically correct dolls without applying the Frye test, and these errors were not ha
• Miller v. State OF N.C.
  583 F.2d 701· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially inflammatory remarks during closing arguments in a rape trial so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny the defendants due process of law.
• United States v. Gresham
  585 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle cannot be sustained solely on the defendant's confession without independent evidence proving the corpus delicti (that the vehicle was stolen).
• United States v. Joseph
  533 F.2d 282· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that none of his appellate arguments warranted reversal, including claims of insufficient evidence, denial of compulsory process, prosecutorial misconduct, improper undercover operations, and
• United States v. Bailey
  458 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the judgment, finding both the automobile and home searches valid.
• United States v. Kellerman
  432 F.2d 371· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as established in Leary v. United States, barred prosecution on count 7, requiring its dismissal. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Colyer
  571 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding the victim's homosexuality was harmless error, and the Master Charge tickets were properly admitted as business records.
• United States v. Leadell Walton
  538 F.2d 1348· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of interlocking confessions in a joint trial was not reversible error, as the government's independent case was strong and the confessions were cumulative, rendering any error harmless. The court also found the warrantless search of an automobile
• United States v. Punch
  709 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the elements of the charges, specifically the knowledge requirement, constituted an "entire failure" to address a core concern of Rule 11, requiring automatic reversal.
• United States v. Harland L. Radue
  707 F.2d 493· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the magistrate did not err in refusing to hold evidentiary hearings on the appellant's claims of pre-indictment delay and improper use of IRS summonses, and that the blanket assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was not justifiable.
• United States v. Stewart
  576 F.2d 50· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 12×
  A confession obtained without complete Miranda warnings, including the right to appointed counsel for indigents, is inadmissible in the government's case-in-chief, and its admission, along with evidence of prior crimes contained therein, cannot be considered harmless error when t
• Earnest L. Jacobson v. People OF the State OF Cal. & Louis S. Nelson
  431 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's claims regarding illegally obtained confessions and improper jury selection were without merit or moot, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Young
  422 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1970-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a)(1) must be vacated due to Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns, but convictions for illegal transfer and conspiracy stand. Admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial statements was harmless error due to overwhelmin
• Kordenbrock v. Scroggy
  919 F.2d 1091· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 11×
  The admission of the appellant's confession, obtained in violation of Miranda rights, was harmless error for both the liability and sentencing phases of the trial. The appellant was not deprived of his constitutional right to psychiatric assistance, and the jury instructions rega
• Bishop v. Rose
  701 F.2d 1150· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state's acquisition and use of a defendant's confidential statement prepared for his attorney violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and this violation was not harmless error.
• United States v. Valez
  467 F.2d 600· 8th Cir.· 1972-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court committed no plain error in admitting in-court identifications, as they were based on independent sources other than the tainted lineup identification.
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  An out-of-court statement offered to explain preliminary circumstances, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• Woodard v. United States
  429 F.2d 716· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues that the rule established in Simmons and Bailey, which prevents testimony given by a criminal defendant to establish standing from being used against them at trial, should apply retroactively to the present case.
• United States v. Wilensky
  757 F.2d 594· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the trial judge's conduct in questioning witnesses overstepped judicial bounds, it did not rise to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal of the convictions, nor did the judge abuse discretion in denying motions to disqualify and for a mistria
• United States ex rel. James W. Gaines v. Rundle
  435 F.2d 700· 3d Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in denying the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the lower court's findings on all grounds.