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

• Kleven v. United States
  240 F.2d 270· 8th Cir.· 1957-01-22 ·cited 38×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the evidence was sufficient, the supplemental jury charge was not coercive, the failure to re-admonish the jury was not error, and a juror's relative's employment did not demonstrate prejudice.
• United States v. Tarresse Leonard
  4 F.4th 1134· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-08 ·cited 37×·via Harmless Error Review
  An indictment that omits the knowledge-of-felon-status element required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and any such omission is subject to harmless-error review.
• Belen Torres v. Cnty. OF Oakland & Oakland Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs. Bd.
  758 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 37×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that admitting testimony containing a legal conclusion was harmless error, and that a single instance of derogatory language or a downgraded evaluation, without more, does not constitute a separate claim for employment discrimination.
• Genstar Chem. Ltd. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  665 F.2d 1304· D.C. Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 37×·via Harmful Error Analysis
  The court held that the district court correctly asserted jurisdiction over the ICC order for payment of money, but erred in awarding Genstar a full 14% recovery.
• United States v. Crumley
  565 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 37×
  The court held that limiting cross-examination of a government witness regarding their motive for testifying, specifically concerning the discovery of a stolen Cadillac, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Rodrick D. Williams v. State
  242 So. 3d 280· Fla.· 2018-02-22 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Review
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Alleyne v. United States requires a jury, not a trial court, to make the factual finding under Fla. Stat. § 775.082(1)(b) as to whether a juvenile offender actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim, because such finding
• Burns v. Clusen
  798 F.2d 931· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the state may have failed to adequately prove witness unavailability, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless error due to the circumstances of the case.
• United States v. De Rosa
  783 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment and the convictions, finding no prosecutorial misconduct warranting dismissal, that the defendant had a duty to disclose information under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, that the false statements were material, and that the
• Raffone v. State
  483 So. 2d 761· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05 ·cited 36×
  Two defendants convicted of drug trafficking charges appeal, arguing the trial court violated discovery rules and failed to conduct a Richardson inquiry when the state introduced new crime lab evidence on the first day of trial showing additional cocaine that substantially altere
• United States v. Kuna
  760 F.2d 813· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not constructively amend the indictment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the restitution condition imposed on probation for the false statement count was vacated.
• United States v. Hazeem
  679 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 36×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Hazeem of aiding and abetting bank fraud and conspiracy, and that his motion for a new trial was untimely.
• Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Bd. OF Educ.
  649 F.2d 434· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that summary judgment for individual defendants was improper due to lack of notice under Rule 56(c), but res judicata barred the § 1983 claim against all defendants despite the intervening Monell decision.
• United States v. Hughes A. Bagley
  641 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 36×
  The court should have remanded for a new trial due to extrinsic evidence potentially affecting the jury's verdict.
• Hunter v. State
  389 So. 2d 661· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-10-01 ·cited 36×
  Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after being indicted for first-degree murder, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury on third-degree murder despite instructing on manslaughter. The court held that the omission of instructions on the immediately lesser deg
• Murray v. State
  378 So. 2d 111· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-01-02 ·cited 36×
  Willie Murray appealed his aggravated battery conviction based on the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the applicable penalty. Although the court agreed that the 1977 amendment to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.390(a) made penalty instructions mandatory, it affirm
• United States v. Turquitt
  557 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence of prior misconduct not resulting in a conviction, used for impeachment, was improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Liddy
  542 F.2d 76· D.C. Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by the dismissal of a prior state prosecution, the application of 18 U.S.C. § 241, or the denial of a lesser included offense charge.
• Lynnwell Smith v. Estelle
  527 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 36×
• United States v. Pravato
  505 F.2d 703· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 36×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of a scrap of paper found in an open suitcase was harmless error, and affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence on one count due to erroneous concurrent sentencing.
• Cline v. United States
  395 F.2d 138· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was not prejudiced by any errors at trial, including prosecutorial misconduct, identification procedures, or the admission of certain evidence.
• Wright v. United States
  389 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1968-02-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a joint resident of an apartment can validly consent to a search of the premises, and that the admission of evidence of other offenses, even if erroneous, was harmless error under the circumstances.
• Nathalie L. Dupont v. S. Pac. Co.
  366 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 36×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court's consolidation of cases did not prejudice the substantial rights of the driver's survivors, nor was the appointment of lead counsel an abuse of discretion.
• Williams v. United States
  345 F.2d 733· D.C. Cir.· 1965-03-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as interpreted in Escobedo, does not require the exclusion of testimony from a police line-up identification conducted without counsel present, nor does it apply to such line-ups.
• Olympia Hotels Corp. v. Johnson WAX Dev. Corp.
  908 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-20 ·cited 35×
  A federal magistrate cannot conduct voir dire in a civil jury trial without the parties' consent, and such an error is not subject to the harmless error rule. The doctrine of election of remedies, in its substantive aspect, prevents double recovery but does not bar a party from a
• United States v. Gillespie
  852 F.2d 475· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's alleged homosexual relationship, expert testimony on child molester characteristics, and testimony concerning anatomically correct dolls without applying the Frye test, and these errors were not ha
• Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  799 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 35×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding the elements of churning was prejudicial and warrants a new trial, as it prevented the plaintiffs from adequately presenting their case.
• Johnson v. State
  442 So. 2d 185· Fla.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Larry Joe Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery in a capital case and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Johnson's challenges to the sheriff's dual role as both investigator and bailiff, the
• United States v. Sixto Mireles
  570 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-07 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress, the prosecutor's comments, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Willinsky v. State
  360 So. 2d 760· Fla.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 35×
  Florida's Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's cross-examination question implying the defendant failed to testify at a preliminary hearing constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether the error is deemed harmless. The court reaffirmed the rule in Simmons v. State and re
• Thomas v. Savage
  513 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-23 ·cited 35×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the introduction of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction at the punishment stage of a felony trial, even if constitutionally invalid, can be harmless error if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the sentence imposed.
• Williams v. State
  863 So. 2d 1189· Fla.· 2003-12-11 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed and remanded the Third District Court of Appeal's decision because that court applied an incorrect harmless error standard in reviewing a trial court error in Williams's criminal conviction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that appellate courts must
• Murray v. State
  838 So. 2d 1073· Fla.· 2002-10-03 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  Gerald Murray was convicted of the 1990 first-degree murder of Alice Vest and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions and vacated his sentence, finding that the trial court improperly admitted DNA evidence that failed to meet Frye standards for reli
• United States v. Canino
  949 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, finding no reversible error in the prosecutorial misconduct claims, the severance of a co-defendant, or the prosecutor's closing argument remarks on double jeopardy.
• Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  847 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 34×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a prior similar accident and in redacting a portion of an incident report, as the evidence was not substantially similar or was unduly prejudicial.
• Thomas v. Kemp
  796 F.2d 1322· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-28 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the district court properly granted habeas corpus relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase due to failure to present mitigating evidence.
• United States v. Windfelder
  790 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's intentions and Lauretta Windfelder's intent, nor did it err in its jury instructions, and any error in admitting testimony about the defendant's intent was harmless.
• United States v. Allan Harvey Bibby (82-5705)
  752 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the misjoinder of certain tax counts was harmless error, and that while multiple conspiracies existed, the defendants were not prejudiced by being charged with a single conspiracy, except for Gillock's conspiracy conviction which was reversed due to prejudice
• United States v. KEY
  725 F.2d 1123· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-18 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly incriminated the appellant and was vital to the government's case violated the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Bobby Joe Norton (82-5032)
  700 F.2d 1072· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions were not subject to reversal based on entrapment, outrageous government conduct, judicial or jury bias, impossibility of the crime, variance between the indictment and proof, or insufficient evidence of knowledge that the explosives
• Hubbard v. State
  411 So. 2d 1312· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-07-10 ·cited 34×
  Harold Hubbard, a juvenile at the time of committing a knife-point robbery in 1977, challenges his conviction after being charged as an adult under a 'direct file' statute enacted in 1978. The Florida appellate court affirms his conviction, holding that the retroactive applicatio
• United States v. Dohm
  597 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the government can use a criminal defendant's statements made in a pre-trial bail hearing to prove guilt at trial, contrary to established precedent.
• Miller v. State OF N.C.
  583 F.2d 701· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a prosecutor's racially inflammatory remarks during closing arguments in a rape trial so infected the proceedings with unfairness as to deny the defendants due process of law.
• United States v. Winston
  447 F.2d 1236· D.C. Cir.· 1971-06-30 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting rebuttal testimony concerning a pretrial identification, as the defense had opened the door by raising the issue of the confrontation.
• Kane v. United States
  431 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to strike testimony under the Jencks Act, admitting oral testimony regarding FDIC insurance, refusing to dismiss the indictment for unrecorded grand jury proceedings, or denying a motion to sever, as no prejudice
• YAM Sang Kwai v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  411 F.2d 683· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-17 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court affirmed the deportation order, finding that the appellant was not subjected to an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• Solomon v. United States
  408 F.2d 1306· D.C. Cir.· 1969-02-12 ·cited 34×·via Harmless Constitutional Error
  The court held that even if identification testimony was improperly admitted, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States ex rel. Frank Chambers v. Maroney
  408 F.2d 1186· 3d Cir.· 1969-01-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while belated appointment of counsel creates a prima facie case of ineffectiveness, the record contained sufficient affirmative proof to rebut the presumption of prejudice, thus no evidentiary hearing was required.
• Lash v. United States
  221 F.2d 237· 1st Cir.· 1955-04-07 ·cited 34×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's absence during the questioning of a juror was harmless error and that other alleged errors were insubstantial.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Burkett
  192 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-16 ·cited 34×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were not erroneous or confusing, and the verdict was not excessive.
• Tundidor v. State
  221 So. 3d 587· Fla.· 2017-04-27 ·cited 33×·via Harmless Error Review
  Randy Tundidor was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, armed kidnapping, burglary, robbery, and arson for orchestrating a home invasion and murder of his landlord Joseph Morrissey in April 2010. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence and first-degre