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
-
The court held that the district court's failure to fully admonish pro se defendants regarding the dangers of self-representation was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no reasonable possibility the defendants would have been acquitted had they been repres
-
The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error by submitting the case to an eight-member jury, nor did it abuse its discretion on the other claims of error raised by the plaintiff.
-
526 So. 2d 709·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1988-05-11
·cited 14×
Rose Herbert was convicted of aggravated child abuse by malicious punishment for striking her 7-year-old son with a belt after he took money from her. The Fourth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the evidence insufficient to prove malicious punishment and ho
-
-
The court held that the convictions of Donald Stackpole and Ray Norton, Jr. for their involvement in an arson conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during their trials.
-
A jury instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof on mens rea, violating Sandstrom v. Montana, is subject to the Chapman harmless error standard and is not automatically reversible if the defendant contested intent.
-
768 F.2d 161·
7th Cir.·
1985-07-18
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court's exclusion of a defense witness violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, and this error was not harmless.
-
471 So. 2d 1336·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1985-06-25
·cited 14×
Violations of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, requiring notice to counsel before responding to jury requests for additional instructions, are subject to harmless error analysis rather than constituting per se reversible error. When the trial court, with agreement of bot
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the complainant's sexual relationship with the defendant, denying a writ for a witness, or admitting rebuttal evidence.
-
The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that value was a material element of attempted theft by deception was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
721 F.2d 672·
9th Cir.·
1983-12-08
·cited 14×
The government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error of examining a juror without all defendants present did not contribute to the verdicts.
-
414 So. 2d 1105·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1982-05-28
·cited 14×
In this products liability case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a directed verdict on strict liability, holding that a manufacturer remains subject to strict liability even when producing a product for a single purchaser using that purchaser's design specifications
-
658 F.2d 411·
5th Cir.·
1981-10-08
·cited 14×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror, limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of an extraneous offense, or in its jury instructions on entrapment, and that any procedural errors were harmless.
-
The dissent argues that under Jenkins v. Anderson, the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's pre-arrest silence, and even post-Miranda silence, constitute harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
646 F.2d 1146·
6th Cir.·
1981-04-02
·cited 14×
The court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal was arbitrary and capricious, constituting a denial of due process.
-
The court held that while some jury instructions were imperfect, they did not rise to the level of constitutional error that would deprive the petitioner of due process or the right to be convicted only under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found n
-
617 F.2d 99·
5th Cir.·
1980-05-14
·cited 14×
The Fifth Circuit held that the Florida court erroneously denied the petitioner his constitutional right to self-representation, as the circuit recognized this right prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta v. California.
-
607 F.2d 662·
5th Cir.·
1979-11-27
·cited 14×
Ineffective assistance of counsel can be established if the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or if a state official knew or should have known of the deficient representation and failed to act.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that the defendant was released pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, as any error in not submitting the factual component to the jury was harmless.
-
605 F.2d 577·
1st Cir.·
1979-09-10
·cited 14×
The court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, despite factors like his injuries, low intelligence, and lack of Miranda warnings.
-
The admission of testimony regarding the victim's pretrial identification of the defendant was harmless constitutional error because the victim's in-court identification was reliable and based on an independent source, and the failure to provide a transcript of the preliminary he
-
The court held that the victim's identification at a pre-indictment arraignment was not a violation of due process or the Sixth Amendment, and any error in admitting the other witness's identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal at the first trial, nor in refusing a second competency examination during the second trial, and that the prosecutor's comment was harmless error.
-
546 F.2d 43·
5th Cir.·
1977-01-26
·cited 14×
The court held that the defendant's statements were either voluntarily made and thus admissible, or any error in admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance.
-
531 F.2d 463·
10th Cir.·
1976-02-20
·cited 14×
The court held that the bankruptcy judge abused his discretion in provisionally disallowing the claims of IIT and Venture Fund for voting purposes, as the objector failed to meet the burden of proof and the denial of voting rights could have affected the election outcome.
-
The court held that the nondisclosure of a confession constituted a Brady error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal.
-
519 F.2d 1267·
5th Cir.·
1975-09-26
·cited 14×
The court held that while the admission of Smith's incriminating statements made during police interrogation violated Escobedo, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to independent evidence of guilt.
-
461 F.2d 465·
3d Cir.·
1972-05-31
·cited 14×
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding unrelated violent acts, even with a curative instruction, constituted reversible error because it was highly prejudicial and could not be considered harmless.
-
The court found that any alleged error in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
463 F.2d 1224·
D.C. Cir.·
1972-04-26
·cited 14×
The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of the lineup identification requires a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least remand for findings.
-
The court held that the district court correctly applied New Hampshire law regarding strict liability and the wrongful death damage limitation, and also correctly awarded pre-judgment interest from the date the complaints were filed.
-
439 F.2d 131·
2d Cir.·
1971-03-01
·cited 14×
The court held that the prosecutor's comments during summation, while potentially improper, did not deny the appellant a fair trial and were harmless error.
-
The court held that while the precinct identification procedure was potentially suggestive, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the extensive independent evidence and the victim's clear observation during the crime.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's silence, while improper, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given defense counsel's prior remarks and the court's curative instructions. The court also held that a warrantless search of a locker was permissible under
-
414 F.2d 943·
7th Cir.·
1969-06-26
·cited 14×
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that while certain identification procedures and confession admissions were constitutionally questionable, they constituted harmless error due to the overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that while arraignment in Massachusetts may have been a critical stage, the absence of counsel did not cause prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt, thus the writ of habeas corpus was properly denied.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the Dyer Act and that the exclusion of certain testimony regarding the appellant's state of mind was not an abuse of discretion and, in any event, constituted harmless error.
-
The evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction under the Florida statute allowing proof of murder in the perpetration of robbery as an alternative to proving premeditation; the defendant's confession was properly admitted with corpus delicti adequately es
-
The court held that the exclusion of competent and material evidence offered by the respondents constituted a denial of due process, requiring denial of the Board's petition for enforcement.
-
80 Fla. 768·
Fla.·
1920-11-30
·cited 14×
D. R. McQuagge was convicted of issuing a bad check in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any technical errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were not prejudicial given the clear evidence of gui
-
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard when evaluating the defendant's request to proceed without counsel.
-
A sentencing scoresheet error is not harmless if the record does not conclusively demonstrate the trial court would have imposed the same sentence with a corrected scoresheet.
-
The court held that while the exclusion of evidence of racial slurs was improper, it did not affect the substantial rights of the parties given the overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff's physical unsuitability for the job.
-
Federal civil service employees do not have a property interest in annual within-grade pay increases protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and judicial review of FLRA decisions on arbitral awards is generally precluded by statute.
-
The court held that the jury instruction for substantive drug charges inadequately conveyed the required mens rea, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for those convictions. However, the error was harmless as to other convictions.
-
1 So. 3d 394·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2009-02-09
·cited 12×
Dennis Curry challenges his convictions for attempted robbery and aggravated assault, arguing that the trial court violated discovery rules by failing to hold a hearing on the state's non-disclosure of a tape-recorded statement from a witness claiming Curry confessed to the crime
-
Leslie Williams was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and carrying a concealed firearm after a jury trial. The court reversed the attempted murder conviction, finding that instructing the jury on the forcible felony exception to self-defense constituted fundamental erro
-
895 So. 2d 1213·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2005-02-25
·cited 12×
Timothy Brett Henrion was convicted of three counts of aggravated child abuse involving injuries to his three-month-old son. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed his convictions because the trial court improperly admitted Williams rule evidence of alleged prior injuries inflicted
-
223 F.3d 1286·
11th Cir.·
2000-08-22
·cited 12×
The government's misconduct, including the manufacture of evidence by a Customs agent and the subsequent knowing use of that tainted evidence at trial, constitutes a constitutional error that is not subject to the harmless error rule. This misconduct deprived the defendant of due
-
623 So. 2d 832·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1993-09-08
·cited 12×
Timothy Taylor appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, attempted robbery, and aggravated assault from a 1991 armed robbery in Pompano Beach. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court improperly restricted cross