Harmless Error Rule

664 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 839 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mauricio v. Duckworth
  840 F.2d 454· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the State's knowing failure to disclose the identity of an alibi rebuttal witness violated due process and was not harmless error.
• Jackson v. Dugger
  837 F.2d 1469· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the petitioner's Miranda rights were not violated regarding his conviction, the jury instruction at the sentencing phase created an unconstitutional presumption of death, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
• United States v. Viera
  819 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the case should be remanded to the district court to develop facts regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct before ruling on the conviction's reversal.
• Jasper Tisdale v. State
  498 So. 2d 1280· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-10-29 ·cited 16×
  A prior inconsistent statement given at a police station is not admissible as substantive evidence because it does not fall within the hearsay exception in section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which limits admissible statements to those given at trial, hearing, other proceedin
• Perry v. Larson
  794 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of political retaliation, improper evidentiary rulings did not deny a fair trial, and damages were properly calculated.
• von Carter v. State
  478 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The Florida Supreme Court remanded a sentencing case to the district court for reconsideration under the standard established in State v. Young, which requires reversal and resentencing when a departure sentence relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons unless the stat
• United States v. Skandier
  758 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify and the shifting of the burden of proof were improper, they constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Harvey
  756 F.2d 636· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a change of venue, limiting voir dire, refusing to disclose the grand jury list, denying a lineup, admitting hypnotically enhanced testimony, or in its jury instructions.
• Williams v. State
  461 So. 2d 1010· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-12-27 ·cited 16×
  Richard Williams appeals his convictions for burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. The court affirmed his petit theft conviction and sentence, holding that a prior conviction obtained after the criminal acts but before sentencing could properly aggravate the sentence, but rev
• Merrill Jackson v. State
  453 So. 2d 456· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 16×
  Merrill Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder in the fatal stabbing of Jake Robinson and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor's comments during voir dire regarding Jackson's
• Hall v. Freese
  735 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the jury's verdict was inconsistent with substantial justice due to the inadequacy of the award and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel, warranting a new trial.
• RAY E. Friedman & Co. v. Jenkins
  738 F.2d 251· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment was correct, affirming the award against the appellant, as any errors were harmless and the appellant's counterclaims and defenses were without merit.
• Dereck Cunningham v. State
  404 So. 2d 759· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-09-08 ·cited 16×
  Dereck Cunningham appeals his conviction for burglary of a structure. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses and remands for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant's right to remain silent during closing argument and that the trial c
• United States v. Jensen
  608 F.2d 1349· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the defendant's fraudulent scheme involving investment contracts constituted fraud in the sale of securities under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that collateral estoppel and discovery errors did not warrant reversal.
• LaROCHE v. Louie L. Wainwright
  599 F.2d 722· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's error in conducting an admissibility hearing in the jury's presence was not harmless.
• United States v. Well
  572 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Jencks Act does not require a defendant to show prejudice when the government fails to produce discoverable statements, and suppression of testimony is an appropriate sanction for such failure.
• United States v. Pope
  574 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial judge was not bound by the mandatory remedies of the Jencks Act when the government's failure to disclose a witness statement was an oversight, and the judge's decision to allow further cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• United States v. Anton
  547 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 16×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that misdelivered mail remains 'in the mail' even after lawful removal from a receptacle, and a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the exact location of the theft is harmless if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Crowley
  529 F.2d 1066· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the absence of counsel at a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea.
• United States v. Busard
  524 F.2d 72· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the admission of evidence concerning a prior arrest was harmless error, and the seized cocaine was properly admitted.
• Powell v. Stone
  507 F.2d 93· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 16×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that evidence obtained from an arrest under an unconstitutional vagrancy ordinance must be excluded, and its admission in a murder trial was not harmless error.
• Phillips v. United States
  502 F.2d 227· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would hold that an implicit acquittal from a conviction on a lesser included offense cannot serve as the basis for collateral estoppel, and even if it could, it should not restrict proof on retrial of the lesser charge.
• Douglas Equip., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
  471 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit portions of a third-party complaint and answers to interrogatories as admissions, nor in admitting maintenance records and manuals.
• Miller v. State
  246 So. 2d 169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-04-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the absence of counsel at a preliminary hearing, if not raised at trial, is waived unless it constitutes fundamental error, and in this case, any error was harmless.
• United States v. Burt Ronzy Beard
  381 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1967-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding evidence found in the defendant's automobile, even if the initial observation was made during an illegal search, was not reversible error because the evidence was not introduced and the observation was made in plain view. T
• Chandler v. United States
  372 F.2d 276· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-17 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the government's amendment to the Declaration of Taking, eliminating an unlawful royalty reservation, was permissible, and that the commission's report was valid despite the lack of formal instructions, as the proceedings met the requirements of Merz and Rule
• Williams v. Rawlings Truck Line, Inc.
  357 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-30 ·cited 16×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the District Court erred in directing a verdict for Goldberger, as New York law, specifically its estoppel doctrine, should apply to determine ownership and potential liability.
• Willis v. United States
  271 F.2d 477· D.C. Cir.· 1959-09-24 ·cited 16×
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, would reverse the convictions due to issues with suppression of evidence, consolidation of indictments, and denial of a speedy trial.
• Kyree Luis Perez v. State
  187 So. 3d 1279· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-04-12 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Kyree Luis Perez was convicted of attempted second-degree murder for shooting his former friend Michael Coley in the abdomen during a heated verbal confrontation that escalated when Coley challenged him to a fight. Perez appealed, arguing the evidence showed only an impulsive ove
• United States v. Primitivo Cortez
  935 F.2d 135· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, that the Allen charge was properly given, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. However, it found that admitting officers' opinion testimony on a witness's truthfulness
• Stallworth v. State
  538 So. 2d 1296· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-10 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Kenneth Stallworth appeals convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the sale of a stolen television set. The court reversed the grand theft conviction while affirming the dealing in stolen property conviction, holding that Florida law prohibits dual
• United States v. Ruz-Salazar
  764 F.2d 1433· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, while a constitutional violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Velarde v. Shulsen
  757 F.2d 1093· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that prosecutorial cross-examination and argument regarding a defendant's post-arrest silence, when not used for impeachment of prior inconsistent statements, violates due process and is not harmless error in a case hinging on the defendant's credibility.
• Wiggins v. Estelle
  681 F.2d 266· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 15×
  A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation can be violated by the unsolicited and overzealous participation of court-appointed standby counsel, even if the right to self-representation was initially granted.
• Krische v. Smith
  662 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-04 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state trial judge's ex parte communication with the jury, instructing them to continue deliberations without notice to the defendant or counsel, constituted a violation of the defendant's due process right to be present, and this error was not harmless.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Allen v. Rowe
  591 F.2d 391· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  A prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument comments on a defendant's silence during police custody, even before Miranda warnings, violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and are not harmless error.
• United States v. Long
  533 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in quashing the subpoena for the government informant, nor in its jury instructions or comments regarding the informant's absence.
• Loftis v. Beto
  450 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-08 ·cited 15×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if the co-defendant's guilty plea before the jury violated the petitioner's confrontation rights, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Shou Demar Williams v. State
  901 So. 2d 357· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-05-06 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  Shou Demar Williams was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child, but the trial court violated judicial neutrality by prompting the prosecution to amend Count I from digital penetration to penile penetration. The court affirmed Count II but reversed Count I because th
• Cruz v. State
  884 So. 2d 105· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-16 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  A resentencing hearing is necessary when a scoresheet error is corrected, even if the original sentence would be legal under the corrected scoresheet.
• Bonine v. State
  811 So. 2d 863· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-03-28 ·cited 14×
  Bonine was convicted of DUI/manslaughter after striking and killing a motorcyclist. The trial court erred by instructing the jury on a legally inadequate statutory presumption of impairment under section 316.1934, and the appellate court held this legal error required reversal de
• Wolcott v. State
  774 So. 2d 954· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-01-12 ·cited 14×
  Ricky Wolcott appeals his convictions for burglary, theft, and dealing in stolen property. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses all convictions, finding that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of Wolcott's prior arrest record, denigrated defense counsel
• Major Thornton v. State
  683 So. 2d 515· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-06-12 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Major Thornton appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for resentencing after pleading no contest to two counts of leaving the scene of an accident with injury or death. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to make his sentences concurrent but reversed in part be
• Terrell v. State
  668 So. 2d 656· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-02-21 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Michael Terrell appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging sentencing scoresheet calculations that he claimed resulted in a sentence that was not actually a downward departure as the trial court believed. The court reversed and remanded, finding
• Jones v. State
  650 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-02-22 ·cited 14×
  Gerald Jones appeals two criminal convictions, challenging whether the trial court properly complied with Faretta requirements before allowing him to represent himself pro se. The court reverses and remands both cases for new trials because the trial court failed to obtain a clea
• Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State
  648 So. 2d 683· Fla.· 1994-11-23 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Review
  Warfield Wike appeals his death sentence imposed after resentencing, challenging the trial judge's denial of his right to present final closing argument in the penalty phase. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Rule 3.780(c) mandates that a defendant in a capital case always has
• United States v. Hill
  953 F.2d 452· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior cocaine use was reversible error because it constituted inadmissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Johnson
  927 F.2d 999· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 14×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that while the district court erroneously admitted a co-conspirator's statement, the error was harmless because other substantial evidence proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Pallais
  921 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury exposure, conspiracy charges, co-conspirator statements, evidence admissibility, or prosecutorial comments.
• United States v. Barta
  888 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-30 ·cited 14×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)