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

• Williams v. State
  865 So. 2d 637· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
• Barnes v. State
  864 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-01-14 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that the jury instruction given on Count One was fundamentally erroneous because it reduced the State's burden of proof on the disputed element of the appellant's knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.
• Rainner v. State
  801 So. 2d 997· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-19 ·cited 4×·via Harmful Error Analysis
  The court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the state's objection based on surveillance location privilege without proper procedure, thus denying the defendant's right to cross-examination.
• Quarterman v. State
  670 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-04-03 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Andre Quarterman was sentenced to seventeen years as a habitual felony offender after pleading guilty to burglary under duress of a furlough condition. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the record lacked required findings of fact regarding prior convictions and pr
• Spry v. State
  664 So. 2d 41· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-12-06 ·cited 4×
  Improper comments on a defendant's silence can constitute error, but in this case, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered the comment harmless.
• Bell v. State
  645 So. 2d 37· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-10-24 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Monte Bell was convicted of robbery with a firearm under three separate counts. This appeal addresses whether the trial court's jury instruction regarding proof of firearm possession during armed robbery was legally sufficient. The court reversed Bell's conviction under Count II
• Haslom v. State
  643 So. 2d 59· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-28 ·cited 4×
  A defendant convicted of cocaine sale and possession after representing himself pro se appeals, arguing the trial court failed to conduct the constitutionally required Faretta inquiry before allowing self-representation. The court agrees and reverses, holding that a trial court c
• Welch v. State
  639 So. 2d 1068· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-07-13 ·cited 4×
  A trial court cannot depart from sentencing guidelines by citing risk of harm to a victim who is already the victim of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, as such risk is an inherent component already factored into the recommended sentencing range.
• Kennedy v. State
  641 So. 2d 135· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-07-01 ·cited 4×·via Harmful Error Analysis
  Brian P. Kennedy appeals his conviction for first-degree felony murder, robbery, and grand theft of a motor vehicle, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession. The court affirmed, holding that although the interrogating officer's reference to i
• Messec v. State
  635 So. 2d 89· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-02-02 ·cited 4×
  Defendant Messec appealed his convictions for armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and armed burglary, challenging the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial based on improper prosecutorial comment. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that although the prosecutor'
• United States v. Young
  981 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically the requirement for a good cause showing for the nondisclosure of confidential informant identities, constituted plain error requiring remand for resentencing.
• United States v. Santiago
  977 F.2d 517· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that an intended loss for sentencing enhancement purposes cannot exceed the economically realistic probable or actual loss. It also held that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for an incomplete attempt if they completed all acts they believed necessary for
• United States v. Hekimain
  975 F.2d 1098· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court's failure to properly inform the defendant of the effects of supervised release and its power to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines constituted a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, rendering the guilty plea involun
• United States v. Soto
  953 F.2d 263· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Review
  The court held that the defendant's post-arrest statement, elicited by police conduct that was the functional equivalent of interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel, was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
• Sheffield v. State
  580 So. 2d 790· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-29 ·cited 4×
  Lorenzo Sheffield appeals his conviction for attempted first-degree murder, challenging the trial court's admission of statements he made to his probation officer during a presentence investigation interview for purposes of impeaching his trial testimony. The appellate court affi
• Oliver v. United States
  921 F.2d 916· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the jury instructions on the burden of proof and presumption of correctness were erroneous, the error was harmless in this specific case because the government had introduced sufficient minimal evidence to support its tax assessment.
• Hill v. Maloney
  927 F.2d 646· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 4×
  A jury instruction that 'malice is implied from any deliberate or cruel act against another, however sudden' creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Plesinski
  912 F.2d 1033· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard (Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A))
  The court held that a prosecutor's unauthorized participation in proceedings was harmless error and did not require dismissal of the indictment or disqualification, especially when the defect was later cured.
• United States v. Jones
  909 F.2d 533· D.C. Cir.· 1990-07-27 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the jury instructions for the Travel Act were erroneous because they did not require proof of intent to violate specific state laws, and the evidence was insufficient to support the Mann Act conviction for 'transportation'.
• St. Luke Gregory, Jr. v. State OF N.C.
  900 F.2d 705· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge would hold that any error in admitting a hearsay statement was harmless, and would reverse the grant of habeas corpus, finding the jury verdict reliable.
• McMILLON v. State
  552 So. 2d 1183· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pretrial deposition of the victim was procedurally inadmissible because the state failed to establish an adequate foundation for its use at trial.
• United States v. Sherlock
  887 F.2d 971· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the defendants' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct do not implicate a fundamental right not to be tried.
• United States v. Campbell
  878 F.2d 170· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 4×
  Deliberate false statements in a search warrant affidavit do not require voiding the warrant if sufficient probable cause remains after excising the false material.
• United States v. Youssef Saleh (88-1200)
  875 F.2d 535· 6th Cir.· 1989-05-18 ·cited 4×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The joint indictment and trial violated Rule 8(b) and prejudiced the defendants, requiring severance.
• United States v. Logan
  861 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent counsel's erroneous advice regarding prior convictions.
• Boutwell v. State
  530 So. 2d 1092· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-15 ·cited 4×
  Kenneth Boutwell appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and firearm possession, contending that his trial counsel had an impermissible conflict of interest by representing both Boutwell and a state witness, that this denied him effective assistance of counsel, and that th
• Gunn v. Lanson Newsome
  851 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
• United States v. Brown
  832 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-10 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that replaying a tape recording for the jury outside the presence of the defendants and their counsel violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal.
• Bright v. Williams
  817 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the jury instruction on intent was exhausted and that the erroneous instruction was not harmless error, thus affirming the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
• DeVINE v. Solem
  815 F.2d 1205· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the admission of appellant's incriminating statements was harmless error.
• Moore v. State
  504 So. 2d 1311· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-10 ·cited 4×
  When a trial court communicates with the jury during deliberations and the record does not affirmatively show counsel was absent, reversal is not warranted absent speculation unsupported by the record.
• Burton v. Foltz
  810 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Brown v. State
  501 So. 2d 1343· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-01-20 ·cited 4×
  Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction and aggravated assault sentence; the State cross-appeals the trial court's rejection of the death penalty. The court affirms the murder conviction despite a trial court error in failing to instruct the jury on underlying felonies (
• Spartanburg Cnty. Sch. Dist. Seven v. Nat'l Gypsum Co.
  805 F.2d 1148· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge believes the jury instruction error was not significant enough to warrant reversal of the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Bustamante
  805 F.2d 201· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the judge's written response to the jury was an error, it was harmless and did not require reversal.
• United States v. Cunningham
  804 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 4×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that while admitting a co-conspirator's guilty plea was error, it was harmless, and the prosecutor's improper reference to excluded evidence in closing argument, without a timely objection, did not constitute plain error.
• Anstead v. COX Broad. & CNA Ins.
  500 So. 2d 197· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-09-16 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Although the deputy commissioner erred by finding Section 440.14(l)(c) inapplicable merely because Anstead had worked substantially the 13 weeks preceding his injury, the error was harmless because competent substantial evidence supported the finding that Anstead was not a season
• State v. Grissom
  492 So. 2d 1324· Fla.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's curative instruction was not fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as referring adversely to the defendant's failure to testify.
• State v. Burns
  491 So. 2d 1139· Fla.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a Third District Court of Appeal decision that had reversed a criminal conviction due to a Fifth Amendment violation from an impermissible comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence. The court held that a harmless error analysis rather than
• Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp.
  789 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's entry of judgment was not inconsistent with substantial justice, as the collective polling procedure adequately ensured verdict unanimity under the circumstances, and the jury's finding on proximate cause supported the judgment.
• Long v. State
  469 So. 2d 1· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-04-25 ·cited 4×
  Marshall Long appealed his probation sentence for burglary on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, challenging improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his failure to confess and testify. The court affirmed the conviction but certified a constitutional question to the Florid
• Mohorn v. State
  462 So. 2d 81· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-01-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the imposition of court costs and costs for the Crimes Compensation Fund was improper without determining the defendant's ability to pay after notice, and that while the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about a witness's prior convictions, this did not
• Brewster v. Bordenkircher
  745 F.2d 913· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to articulate reasons for compelling the defendant to wear manacles during trial violated his due process rights, and this error was not harmless.
• Christopher's, Inc. v. Podolnick
  458 So. 2d 777· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendants' motion to read depositions of unavailable witnesses.
• United States v. Suzan Joseph Daoud
  741 F.2d 478· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the trial court erred in refusing a curative instruction regarding the defendant's request for counsel, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that questioning the defendant about her ability to pay for counsel was permiss
• Ormand Bernard Gallon v. State
  455 So. 2d 473· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-08-09 ·cited 4×
  Improper prosecutorial comments during closing argument that attacked the credibility of the defense and defense counsel constitute harmless error when the trial record contains substantial independent evidence of guilt, including direct testimony from undercover agents and a tap
• Charles v. Foltz
  741 F.2d 834· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes did not violate due process, and any instructional error regarding malice was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Coley v. State
  449 So. 2d 409· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-05-04 ·cited 4×
  Terry Lee Coley appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to comment on the truthfulness of his testimony during closing argument. The appellate court affirms, holding that where a defendant testifies contrary
• Nezowy v. United States
  723 F.2d 1120· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that cross-examining a defense witness about her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege is trial error, but found the error to be harmless in this case.
• Connor v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n
  721 F.2d 1054· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 4×·via Harmless Error In Administrative Proceedings
  The court concurred that while the oral reply hearing might have been perfunctory, the employee's own conduct foreclosed any firm conclusion to that effect, thus justifying the agency's action.