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

• Segarra v. Mellerson
  675 So. 2d 980· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-05-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony and comments thereon, but erred in denying attorney's fees based on an incorrect standard.
• Iracio Desilien v. State
  595 So. 2d 1046· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-03-11 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Desilien was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and felony murder. On appeal, he challenged a jury instruction on willful blindness and a denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. The court found the willful blindness instruction was error but harmless beyond a reasonable
• 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
• Colina v. State
  570 So. 2d 929· Fla.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 11×
  Manuel Colina was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the beating deaths of an elderly couple. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions but reversed the death sentences, finding that trial court errors regarding the exclusion of Cas
• Landa Williams v. State
  556 So. 2d 799· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-02-14 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Landa Williams's convictions on all counts but found error in the sentencing phase. The court vacated the sentence on Count VI (attempted lewd and lascivious assault) and remanded for resentencing because the combined incarceration and
• United States v. Lynch
  800 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, refusing a manslaughter instruction, admitting certain statements, limiting cross-examination, or in finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions.
• Alvord v. Wainwright
  564 F. Supp. 459· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a defendant's expressed unwillingness to raise a defense does not absolve counsel of the responsibility to investigate and present that defense, especially when the defense is the only plausible one.
• United States v. Johns
  625 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 11×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that any error in failing to address the appellant personally regarding her admission of probation violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Hal Clemit Derrick
  507 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1974-12-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the government erred in not producing all of the witness's prior statements, the error was harmless because the defense already possessed the same information.
• Jones v. State
  212 So. 3d 321· Fla.· 2017-03-02 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Review
  Henry Lee Jones was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murder of Carlos Perez and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, holding that evidence of Jones's similar murders of two other victims was properly admitted to establish i
• Johnson v. State
  205 So. 3d 1285· Fla.· 2016-12-01 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated Paul Johnson's death sentences because the jury that recommended death did not unanimously find the facts necessary to impose capital punishment, violating the requirements of Ring v. Arizona and Hurst v. Florida. The court remanded for a new pen
• Mohn v. State
  723 So. 2d 873· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-12-09 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  David Mohn appealed his sentencing for felon in possession of a firearm, challenging the trial court's inclusion of 18 additional points for firearm possession on his guidelines scoresheet. The Florida Supreme Court's decision in White v. State resolved the issue in Mohn's favor,
• United States v. Harrison-Philpot
  978 F.2d 1520· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to adopt the presentence report or tie its sentence to the Guidelines requires vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing. It also found certain evidentiary errors to be harmless.
• Deparvine v. State
  603 So. 2d 679· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-08-18 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  William Deparvine appealed his grand theft sentence after being convicted by jury. The court found that the sentencing guidelines scoresheet contained a calculation error that reduced the recommended sentencing range by two cells, requiring vacation of the sentence and remand for
• D.R. v. State
  588 So. 2d 327· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-11-06 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Review
  D.R., a juvenile charged with aggravated battery, appeals after the trial court refused to conduct a Richardson hearing to evaluate alleged discovery violations when the state attempted to elicit testimony about a prior police statement that had not been disclosed to the defense.
• United States v. Bachynsky
  924 F.2d 561· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-13 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  A district court's complete failure to inform a defendant of the possibility of supervised release, when the defendant is ultimately sentenced to supervised release, mandates vacating the sentence and allowing the defendant to plead anew, regardless of harmless error.
• United States v. Brown
  921 F.2d 1304· D.C. Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 10×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error, and the sentence enhancement was valid due to substantial compliance with statutory filing requirements.
• Blair v. Armontrout
  916 F.2d 1310· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state court's factual finding that no deal existed between the prosecutor and a key witness was supported by the record and thus presumed correct, meaning no knowing use of perjured testimony occurred. The court also held that the defendant's waiver of Mir
• In re Cont'l Airlines Corp. v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  901 F.2d 1259· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would allow striking employees to recover damages representing the difference between contract rates and reduced rates paid by the employer after repudiation.
• United States v. Stumpf
  900 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant's Rule 35(a) motion, treated as a collateral attack, could not establish an illegal sentence based on a failure to warn about restitution when the restitution amount was less than potential fines and the promissory note was a pre-existing civil obl
• Anderson v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  887 F.2d 630· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's (AU) denial of disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, including the proper application of legal standards for pain and the use of the Medical Vocational Guidelines.
• Gilbert v. State
  547 So. 2d 246· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-19 ·cited 10×
  James Gilbert was convicted of possession and sale of cocaine and sentenced to 30 months in prison. He appealed on grounds of trial court error in allowing a confidential informant to testify as rebuttal evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The Florida District Court of Appeal
• United States v. Larrazolo
  869 F.2d 1354· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, and therefore, the indictment stands.
• United States v. Gallo
  859 F.2d 1078· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The inadvertent inclusion of a small portion of a defendant's prior immunized testimony in an application for electronic surveillance, which did not influence the decision to seek or issue the surveillance order, constitutes harmless error and does not require dismissal of the in
• Zackary Rogers v. Lynaugh
  848 F.2d 606· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's argument to the jury, suggesting they allocate ten years for each prior conviction in addition to the current offense, constituted constitutional error under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• Leif Tollefson v. State
  525 So. 2d 957· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Leif Tollefson appeals his convictions for manslaughter, DUI-manslaughter, leaving the scene of accidents, DUI-property damage, and resisting an officer with violence. The appellate court found harmless error in the admission of prior DUI evidence and the jury instruction limitin
• Fiandaca v. Cunningham
  827 F.2d 825· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to disqualify counsel due to a conflict of interest, but affirmed the finding of liability on equal protection grounds, remanding only for a new determination of the remedy.
• United States v. Collatos
  798 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the materiality of a false statement in a perjury case is a question of law, not fact, and that any prosecutorial comment on the defendant's silence was harmless error.
• State v. Thornton
  491 So. 2d 1143· Fla.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a murder conviction where the trial judge admitted testimony that the defendant had exercised his right to remain silent after a Miranda warning. The court found the officer's statement was error under Florida's 'fairly susceptible' standard for
• Rousseau v. State
  489 So. 2d 828· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-05-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that when a sentencing court departs from guidelines based on reasons prohibited by State v. Mischler, an appellate court cannot apply the harmless error rule; reversal is mandated.
• United States v. Sosa
  789 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 regarding the review and resolution of presentence investigation reports constituted a violation requiring resentencing.
• Griffin v. Martin
  785 F.2d 1172· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the result based on prior precedent, finding that contradictory jury instructions on self-defense rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
• McNEIL v. Cuyler
  782 F.2d 443· 3d Cir.· 1986-02-04 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the majority misapplied the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby increasing the burden on petitioners and wrongly changing the outcome of the case.
• United States v. Conover
  772 F.2d 765· 11th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 10×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the defendants' conspiracy to defraud Seminole Electric, a recipient of federal loan assistance, did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 371 because Seminole Electric was not a federal agency or performing a federal function.
• State v. Alonza Rowell
  476 So. 2d 149· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had vacated Rowell's burglary and theft convictions based on an alleged improper comment on his right to remain silent. The Court held that the officer's fragmented and incomplete statement, when considered in full
• Margarito Alfaro v. State
  471 So. 2d 1345· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-06-26 ·cited 10×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a manslaughter by drunken driving conviction because the state failed to disclose an accident reconstruction expert opinion from the county medical examiner before trial, and the trial court erred in admitting the evidence without cond
• Delvaux v. Ford Motor Co.
  764 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a convertible automobile is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law due to its design, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request to interview jurors.
• United States v. Smeaton
  762 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's bail jumping conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of willfulness and that an erroneous jury instruction on insanity was harmless error. The court affirmed the conviction.
• Marshall v. State
  473 So. 2d 688· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-12-28 ·cited 10×
  Jay Marshall was convicted of burglary, kidnapping, and sexual battery, but the appellate court reversed because the prosecutor impermissibly commented on Marshall's decision not to testify during closing arguments, violating his Fifth Amendment rights under Griffin v. California
• Curtis v. State
  455 So. 2d 1090· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-09-13 ·cited 10×
  It is not a violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 for a trial judge to respond to jury questions without notifying counsel when the response merely reiterates principles of evidence evaluation, and any error is harmless when abundant evidence supports the verdict.
• Meyers v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  738 F.2d 328· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions on contributory negligence and the admission of evidence regarding prior injuries were not erroneous and did not prejudice the plaintiff.
• United States v. Hans
  738 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the district court's decision to allow the jury to see windbreakers not admitted into evidence was harmless error, and would affirm the conviction.
• James v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  715 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 10×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that damages solely to the product itself are not recoverable in a products liability action under Texas law, but may be recoverable under Illinois law if the damage constitutes 'physical damage' rather than economic loss. The court also held that the appellant fai
• Williams v. Engle
  683 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief must be vacated and the case remanded because the record was inadequate to determine if the constitutional error was harmless.
• E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Melford Berns
  682 F.2d 173· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 10×
• Kurzon v. United States Postal Serv.
  539 F.2d 788· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-21 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court held that the Postal Service's mail stop order was supported by substantial evidence, as the advertising for Prostex exaggerated the timing and circumstances under which the drug would provide relief.
• United States v. Bishop
  492 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-28 ·cited 10×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the inadvertent delivery of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury did not constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the exhibit was not inflammatory.
• Wilburn Jerome Gerberding v. Swenson
  435 F.2d 368· 8th Cir.· 1970-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The use of a constitutionally infirm prior conviction for sentence enhancement is harmless error if other valid prior convictions exist and are sufficient to support the enhancement.
• Phillips v. State OF N.C.
  433 F.2d 659· 4th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 10×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Supreme Court's ruling in Coleman v. Alabama, requiring counsel at preliminary hearings, should not be applied retroactively to cases predating the decision.
• United States v. Teran
  434 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that giving a presumption instruction, even if flawed, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in a smuggling case where actual knowledge was established by other evidence.