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

• Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Suzette Ahrendt Janoff
  901 So. 2d 141· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-10-27 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiff Suzette Janoff brought a products liability action against Philip Morris alleging that environmental tobacco smoke exposure caused her respiratory ailments while working as a flight attendant. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the trial court granted a
• Griffis v. State
  848 So. 2d 422· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-07-02 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Review
  Brian Michael Griffis was convicted of child abuse in the death of his 4-month-old daughter. The appellate court reversed his conviction, finding the jury instruction on child abuse contained fundamental error by including elements from the wrong statute (culpable negligence and
• Suda v. State
  838 So. 2d 665· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-03-04 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Florida appellate court reversed a trafficking conviction because the trial court abused its discretion in finding harmless a discovery violation involving an undisclosed State witness, applying the extraordinarily high standard that requires showing no reasonable possibility the
• Allen v. State
  789 So. 2d 1154· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-07-05 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Allen was convicted of armed kidnapping, robbery, and carjacking. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a physical description of crime perpetrators given by a witness constitutes a non-hearsay statement of identification under Florida Evidence Code § 90.801(2)(c), and any e
• Logan Wallace v. State
  768 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-10-17 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Logan Wallace appeals his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the prosecutor's repeated and deliberate references to the victim of the defendant's alleged vulgar comments as a "white woman" constituted improper appeals to racial prejudice that denied him a fair trial. The co
• Dingle v. State
  699 So. 2d 834· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-10-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that precluding cross-examination of a witness about pending charges is subject to harmless error analysis, and convictions for both felony murder and the underlying felony of aggravated child abuse are not barred by double jeopardy.
• Quinn v. State
  692 So. 2d 988· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-05-02 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Robert Quinn appeals his convictions and sentences in two criminal cases from 1995 and 1996. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and the 1996 sentence but vacated the 1995 sentence because the trial court imposed a 36-month sentence that exceeded the maximum 21.25-month
• Lavender v. State
  650 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-03-10 ·cited 6×·via Harmful Error Standard
• United States v. Olson
  978 F.2d 1472· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-05 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address, nor in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Saenz
  969 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court's error in misstating the minimum term of supervised release was harmless and did not entitle the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.
• United States v. Estrada
  965 F.2d 651· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that even if a sentencing court relies on impermissible factors for an upward departure, the sentence may be affirmed if the court would have imposed the same sentence based on permissible factors and the sentence is reasonable.
• United States v. Gassler
  943 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-09 ·cited 6×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that references to a murder during trial constituted harmless error and that the upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines was reasonable.
• Ouimette v. Moran
  942 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the state prosecutor's failure to disclose the extensive criminal record and deals made with a key witness violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.
• Meeks v. Dugger
  576 So. 2d 713· Fla.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 6×
  Douglas Ray Meeks, a death row inmate, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming his two death sentences violated Hitchcock v. Dugger by restricting jury consideration to only statutory mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found a Hitchcock violation but remande
• Kowalski v. Gagne
  914 F.2d 299· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that a prior murder conviction can collaterally estop a defendant from contesting liability under the wrongful death statute and the applicability of an intentional act exclusion in an insurance policy. The court also affirmed the admission of the conviction as evi
• Carapella v. United States (In Re Carapella)
  115 B.R. 365· M.D. Fla.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the debtor was estopped from denying dominion and control over shell corporations and that his tax liabilities were not dischargeable due to evasion.
• Collazo v. Estelle
  898 F.2d 87· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible, as it was not the product of police coercion despite initial improper statements.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist.
  879 F.2d 434· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the EEOC's proposed jury instruction, as it was not a correct statement of the law for a new hire situation and any error would have been harmless.
• United States v. Parker
  877 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for two counts of conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on venue, evidence exclusion, grand jury testimony, prosecutorial arguments, or sentencing.
• Lombard v. Lynaugh
  868 F.2d 1475· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that a defendant constructively denied effective assistance of appellate counsel falls under the Penson v. Ohio standard, where prejudice is presumed, obviating the need for a Strickland analysis.
• Bersett v. K-Mart Corp.
  869 F.2d 1131· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding the new rule from Cox v. J.C. Penney Co. should not be applied retroactively.
• Nixon v. State
  536 So. 2d 391· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-01-11 ·cited 6×
  Nixon was convicted of unarmed robbery, resisting arrest with violence, simple battery, and offering to commit lewdness following an alleged prostitution encounter with an undercover police officer. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions because the prosecut
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  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.
• United States v. Said Arefi
  847 F.2d 1003· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that while some technical violations of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 occurred, a specific misstatement in the presentence report implying involvement in multiple drug transactions was prejudicial and may have influenced the sentence, requiring vacation and remand for resentenc
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• United States v. Lane
  834 F.2d 645· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or other constitutional violations, and therefore, the denial of his habeas corpus petition was affirmed.
• Dick v. Kemp
  833 F.2d 1448· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Review
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was squarely before the jury and the evidence of intent was not overwhelming.
• Smothers v. State
  513 So. 2d 776· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-10-12 ·cited 6×
  Timothy Smothers was convicted of attempted armed robbery after the trial court admitted an involuntary pretrial statement for impeachment purposes without making a voluntariness determination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court must explicitly determine vol
• Clark v. Rose
  822 F.2d 596· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Court held that the Sandstrom error in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant's guilt and intent, and the jury would have reached the same verdict regardless of the erroneous instruction.
• United States v. Drosten
  819 F.2d 1067· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Schmitt
  794 F.2d 555· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Even if the prosecutor's comments on the appellant's silence violated the Fifth Amendment, such comments were harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The admission of evidence regarding the appellant's tax liability was also proper.
• Harp v. Dep't OF the Army
  791 F.2d 161· Fed. Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 6×·via Harmful Error Standard
  The court held that the unavailability of a hearing transcript is not automatically harmful error and that the record was sufficient for review.
• United States v. Jonas
  786 F.2d 1019· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying severance motions, admitting redacted statements, or in its handling of a potentially biased juror. The convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Mechanik
  756 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 6×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that a defendant subject to retrial after a mistrial due to a hung jury has no colorable double jeopardy claim appealable before final judgment, following Richardson v. United States.
• Acree v. The Minolta Corp.
  748 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in giving a supplemental jury instruction without consulting counsel, the error was harmless because it did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on
• Jacky B. Strickland v. State
  447 So. 2d 322· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-02-21 ·cited 6×
  Strickland was charged with grand theft and multiple counts of forgery and uttering forged instruments related to fraudulent encyclopedia purchase contracts. The trial court allowed the jury to review non-admitted demonstrative charts during deliberations; Strickland appealed, ar
• State v. Walker
  429 So. 2d 1301· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-04-13 ·cited 6×
  Florida sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's order suppressing eyewitness identification testimony after an armed robbery. The court denied the petition, finding the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and created a substantial likelihood of m
• Clark v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  693 F.2d 500· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 6×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the magistrate's findings of negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous, and therefore affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Schaefer
  691 F.2d 639· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from an unlawful warrantless search and seizure was not harmless error, requiring a new trial.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ira Bruce Miller v. State
  410 So. 2d 557· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-10 ·cited 6×
  Miller challenges the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on minimum and maximum penalties for the trafficking in cocaine charge, despite being convicted only of the lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver. The Fourth DCA affirmed the conviction while
• Zettler v. Ehrlich
  384 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-17 ·cited 6×
  Default judgments were properly entered against defendants under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(a) and (b) where the defendants failed to file or serve any authorized responsive pleading or paper within the required time period, and an out-of-state non-attorney's letter did not constitute a
• Peoples Bank OF Indian River Cnty. (proposed new bank) v. State
  378 So. 2d 328· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-01-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Department erred in using data not in the record, this error was harmless because sufficient other competent and substantial evidence supported the denial of the bank application.
• United States v. Williams
  561 F.2d 859· D.C. Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court denied a sua sponte suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• United States v. Van Meerbeke
  548 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial judge's silence regarding a witness's drug use was an error, it did not affect the judgment in this specific case.
• Jackson v. State
  328 So. 2d 576· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-03-09 ·cited 6×
  Ronald Jackson was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny after a jury trial. He appealed challenging the denial of his motions for mistrial based on allegedly prejudicial references to his fingerprints on file and a prosecutor's comment, as well a
• Gordan v. State
  288 So. 2d 295· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of similar fact evidence was proper and that the timing of cautionary instructions is within the trial judge's discretion.
• United States v. Marrero
  486 F.2d 622· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a government file on the defendant as a 'major violator' was impermissibly prejudicial and required reversal.
• United States v. Abell Holiday
  482 F.2d 729· D.C. Cir.· 1973-07-12 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if a lineup was uncounseled, in-court identifications can be admissible if they have an independent source, and references to the lineup at trial can be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
• United States v. Miramon
  470 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1972-12-05 ·cited 6×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that even if there was an error in admitting evidence obtained from a search, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the identification procedures and assistance of counsel were not improper.