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
-
Even if jury instructions were constitutionally infirm, any error was harmless because the assailant's intent was not in issue and the facts provided ample evidence of intent.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's conduct in pressuring alibi witnesses to change their testimony constituted a constitutional error that was not harmless.
-
The court held that the government failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus to overturn the trial court's order granting a new trial.
-
631 F.2d 87·
6th Cir.·
1980-10-01
·cited 2×
The court held that a defendant testifying before a grand jury, who is not in custody and not under indictment, is not entitled to Miranda warnings, and their testimony can be used against them at trial.
-
-
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by allowing a belated notice of alibi demand, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
527 F.2d 1031·
10th Cir.·
1975-12-31
·cited 2×
The court held that failure to comply with General Order 44 or list a contingent fee contract as an executory contract does not bar attorneys' fees, and that while the trial court erred in its interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 155, the fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of knowing participation in the conspiracy and that any prosecutorial misconduct or trial errors were harmless.
-
473 F.2d 115·
D.C. Cir.·
1972-11-13
·cited 2×
The court held that even if Fourth Amendment claims were cognizable under § 2255 and the seized evidence was unlawfully obtained, its admission was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, thus affirming the denial of the motion.
-
The court held that the conviction for theft from the United States mail should be affirmed due to overwhelming admissible evidence, despite some close rulings.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance and that evidence seized was admissible.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's actions, including calling a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment and commenting on that invocation in closing arguments, denied the petitioner a fair trial.
-
The court held that the District Court did not err in denying the petition for habeas corpus relief, affirming the lower court's findings on all grounds.
-
437 F.2d 649·
D.C. Cir.·
1970-10-09
·cited 2×
An erroneous jury instruction, particularly when given as the final word to a deliberating jury and in response to specific questions, is not cured by prior correct instructions and can constitute reversible error.
-
420 F.2d 962·
4th Cir.·
1970-02-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the exclusion of the doctor's testimony was harmless error because substantially similar testimony was admitted.
-
The court held that the state trial court's refusal to allow defense counsel to inspect notes used by a witness to refresh his memory, while error, did not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation requiring habeas corpus relief.
-
-
The court held that the jury charge, including a parenthetical judicial remark, was not reversible error, either individually or cumulatively.
-
389 F.2d 334·
8th Cir.·
1968-02-13
·cited 2×
The court held that while testimony regarding the defendant's knowledge of the illegality of her actions was irrelevant to the charges and the entrapment defense, its admission was not prejudicial error requiring reversal because the evidence of guilt was strong and no objection
-
384 F.2d 598·
8th Cir.·
1967-11-03
·cited 2×
The court held that the presence of petit jurors during grand jury instructions, without specific reference to the defendant, did not constitute prejudicial error, especially when the trial court provided curative instructions.
-
In this eminent domain appeal, the Florida appellate court reversed a judgment awarding $16,000 to property owners because the trial court admitted an expert appraiser's valuation report that was statutorily prohibited from use at trial under Florida Statutes section 74.09. The a
-
Christopher Barbaro Mesa appealed his conviction and sentence for grand theft of a motor vehicle, challenging the trial court's imposition of a habitual felony offender sentence enhancement without jury fact-finding under Erlinger v. United States. The appellate court affirmed th
-
Postconviction review of a sentence based on Erlinger is improper because Erlinger was a direct-appeal case involving required jury findings, not a postconviction case, and Apprendi announced a procedural rule that does not apply retroactively.
-
Colby McCoggle, convicted as a juvenile of murder in 1994, appealed his resentencing after his original mandatory life sentence was initially deemed unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama but later upheld as constitutional under subsequent case law. The appellate court affirmed
-
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding whether erroneous denial of a for-cause juror challenge in civil cases is per se reversible error or subject to harmless error review. The Court held that harmless error analysis applies, but on remand,
-
An agency must rule on a petition for formal administrative hearing within fifteen days under the Administrative Procedure Act, and its failure to do so violates due process and prevents dismissal with prejudice. The relation back doctrine cannot cure an amended petition filed ou
-
A Nelson hearing was not required because Butler made only general complaints of dissatisfaction with counsel's trial preparation and strategy rather than a clear and unequivocal request to discharge counsel, and any such request was untimely after trial began. The Faretta inquir
-
The appellate court reversed a battery conviction because the prosecutor made improper comments and questions during the trial. These comments improperly invaded the jury's province, potentially commented on the defendant's silence, bolstered police testimony, and mischaracterize
-
The court held that the plaintiff waived several arguments by failing to raise them before the Magistrate Judge or in the joint memorandum, and therefore affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security benefits.
-
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's sentence for unlawful sexual activity with a minor, despite an error in the sentencing scoresheet. The court found the error harmless because the trial court would have imposed the same sentence regardless.
-
Carlos Cherizard appeals the denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his home-invasion robbery with a firearm conviction was improperly classified as a life felony instead of a first-degree felony. The court affirms the denial of resentencing bu
-
Terry Ellison, Jr. petitioned for relief based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel who failed to challenge a sentencing error involving an improperly applied "adult-on-minor sex offense" multiplier on his criminal scoresheet. The court found the scoresheet error was no
-
The trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling the defendant's objections to the State's rebuttal closing argument statements, as they were either proper fair reply to defense argument or constituted harmless error.
-
When sentencing a juvenile offender for crimes of violence, a jury rather than a judge must make the factual finding of whether the defendant actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim.
-
A trial court's failure to make case-specific findings required by statute before allowing closed-circuit television testimony does not require reversal when not preserved for appeal and is not fundamental error. Additionally, a defendant's right to communicate with counsel durin
-
A prosecutor's comments about a victim's mental and physical condition do not constitute a prohibited "golden rule" argument when the comments are based on trial evidence, relevant to issues in dispute, made in fair reply to defense arguments, and not intended to inflame the jury
-
Sonny Boy Oats, Jr., a death row inmate, sought habeas corpus relief arguing his death sentence must be vacated under Hurst v. Florida or that a jury (rather than a judge) must determine intellectual disability under Hall v. Florida. The Florida Supreme Court denied relief, holdi
-
Scala and Weitz appealed their first-degree grand theft convictions, but the Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to pervasive errors, omissions, and inaccuracies in the trial transcripts that prevented meaningful appellate review. The court also addr
-
The court held that improper statements by counsel and a prejudicial jury instruction, when considered cumulatively, denied the opposing party a fair trial, warranting a new trial.
-
The court held that admitting hearsay within a business record, without a separate exception for the hearsay statement, is error. This error was not harmless because the hearsay contributed to the conviction.
-
848 So. 2d 1242·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2003-07-09
·cited 1×
Publix Super Markets appeals a personal injury judgment against it, contending the trial court violated Florida law by using a general verdict form instead of the mandatory itemized verdict form required by section 768.77. The court reverses and remands for a new trial on damages
-
726 So. 2d 846·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1999-02-05
·cited 1×
The court held that the trial court's refusal to give a voluntary intoxication instruction was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of premeditation and the availability of a felony murder theory.
-
690 So. 2d 664·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1997-03-20
·cited 1×
Keith Darryl Lee appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the validity of his waiver of a conflict of interest arising from his court-appointed lawyer's prior representation of a key prosecution witness. The court reverses because the trial court failed to inform L
-
999 F.2d 549·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-07-27
·cited 1×
The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
-
The court held that the district court's finding that the pilot's negligence was more than slight compared to the FSS Specialists' negligence was not clearly erroneous.
-
Florida appellate court affirmed a 15-year sentence for aggravated battery despite the trial court's reliance on lack of remorse as an improper departure reason, finding the remaining valid reasons supported the sentence beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
247 So. 2d 97·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1971-04-20
·cited 1×
-
112 So. 2d 380·
Fla.·
1959-03-11
·cited 1×
Jesse Pait was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Adolf Rothman during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument that unfairly prejudiced the jury against re
-
The trial court did not commit reversible error in finding no discovery violation regarding a late-delivered video interview of the driver-accomplice, because the State had disclosed the interview's existence and a summary of its contents to the defense long before trial, and a f
-
Although the trial court erred in permitting testimony about the nature of the defendant's five prior convictions, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to both the felon-in-possession and first-degree murder convictions because the defendant's guilt was clearly est