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

• United States v. Morgan
  581 F.2d 933· D.C. Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an affidavit statement was not hearsay and was admissible in the appellant's defense.
• Morgan v. Hall
  569 F.2d 1161· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-26 ·cited 26×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper questioning of the defendant about his post-arrest silence was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
• United States v. Jacques Berenguer
  562 F.2d 206· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 26×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that while the admission of testimony concerning currency seized following a warrantless arrest was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. HAY
  527 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial, that the admission of Swiss bank records and deposition testimony was harmless error due to his admissions, and that the evidence established a crime against the United States.
• United States v. Grady Quicksey
  525 F.2d 337· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to violate the Travel Act for some defendants, vacated others, and remanded for resentencing or new trial based on the specific facts and jury findings.
• United States v. Poole
  495 F.2d 115· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's waiver of his rights was effective, and therefore his confession was admissible despite potential issues with Rule 5(a) delay.
• United States v. Bernett
  495 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the admission made in a noncustodial setting was voluntary, and any error in failing to instruct the jury on the weight of the admission was nonprejudicial.
• United States v. James
  432 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-02 ·cited 26×·via Harmless Error Standard
• United States v. Kellerman
  432 F.2d 371· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-28 ·cited 26×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, as established in Leary v. United States, barred prosecution on count 7, requiring its dismissal. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Panczko
  429 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-16 ·cited 26×
  The admission of a defendant's prior conviction was prejudicial error, requiring reversal.
• Bearden v. United States
  320 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-10 ·cited 26×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
• Schoppel v. United States
  270 F.2d 413· 4th Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury, convicted felons are competent witnesses, and allowing an investigating officer to testify while other witnesses were excluded was not an abuse of discretion. The prosecutor's improper bolstering of witnesses was harml
• United States v. Calhoun
  257 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1958-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the conspiracy count of the indictment was fatally defective due to a missing element, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co., Inc. v. Grady
  99 So. 2d 871· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-01-13 ·cited 26×·via Harmful Error Analysis
  Red Top Cab appeals a damages judgment for personal injuries, raising three grounds: the trial court's refusal to appoint two doctors to examine the plaintiff, objections to neurosurgeon testimony, and claims of excessive damages. The court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion
• Shurman v. United States
  233 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that prejudicial comments by the trial judge regarding the appellant's entrapment defense constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Levi
  177 F.2d 827· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-07 ·cited 26×
  The majority holds that asking an impeaching question about a conviction that did not exist constituted prejudicial error.
• Brooks v. United States
  164 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1947-11-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a variance between an indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof showing multiple separate conspiracies is reversible error if prejudicial.
• Kaufman v. United States
  163 F.2d 404· 6th Cir.· 1947-07-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant was properly convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy, affirming the district court's judgment. The court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings, including evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and jurisdictional issues.
• Dixon v. State
  79 Fla. 586· Fla.· 1920-04-24 ·cited 26×
  P. D. Dixon was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder after cutting B. W. Waller with a knife during an altercation on a public street. Dixon appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions on self-defense, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the c
• Brown v. State
  640 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-07-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after a discovery violation necessitated reversal, regardless of harmless error.
• Carlton Rolle v. State
  528 So. 2d 1208· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-27 ·cited 25×
  Carlton Rolle was convicted of felony DUI based on a blood alcohol level of 0.10% or higher. The court reversed his conviction, holding that the jury instruction implementing Florida's statutory presumption that a 0.10% BAC establishes impairment as a matter of law violates the D
• United States v. Farnham
  791 F.2d 331· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to sequester a government witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 615, and that a conviction based on that witness's testimony must be reversed. The court also found the evidence minimally adequate to establish the materiali
• United States v. Hemant Patel
  762 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 25×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, affirming the convictions and sentences.
• United States v. Perl
  584 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 25×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
• United States v. Colyer
  571 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 25×·via Harmless Error Rule (Chapman V. California)
  The court held that the trial court's restriction of cross-examination regarding the victim's homosexuality was harmless error, and the Master Charge tickets were properly admitted as business records.
• Anderson v. State
  865 So. 2d 640· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-02-13 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  Jerry Anderson appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his sentencing on a probation violation. The Second District reversed regarding a scoresheet error claim, holding that Anderson was entitled to resentencing unless the record conclusively demonstrated
• United States v. Patrick
  959 F.2d 991· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 24×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The television receipt was not hearsay when offered to show the defendant's connection to the apartment and television, not for the truth of payment.
• United States v. Curran
  926 F.2d 59· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 24×
  A sentencing court must either disclose documents it relies on for factual content or clearly state it is not using them for factual content, to afford the defendant a fair opportunity to challenge them.
• United States v. Abel Garcia
  917 F.2d 1370· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding that any discovery violations were harmless and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, with the substantive possession conviction affirmed under the Pinkerton doctrine.
• Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp.
  879 F.2d 43· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that numerous errors committed by the district court, particularly the improper joinder of plaintiffs and erroneous jury instructions, were not harmless and prejudiced the defendant. The dissent co
• United States v. Burton
  871 F.2d 1566· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for embezzlement and conspiracy to embezzle, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Zelinka
  862 F.2d 92· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of post-conspiracy cocaine possession was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was not probative of any material issue other than character and thus was inadmissible 'other crimes' evidence.
• Santana v. State
  507 So. 2d 680· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-05-13 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Analysis In Sentencing
  The court held that while one of the four reasons for departure was invalid, the remaining three valid reasons were sufficient to support the sentence, and the state met its burden to show the departure would have occurred regardless.
• United States v. Bowman
  798 F.2d 333· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions on witness credibility and burden of proof, nor in admitting evidence of prior wrongful acts or prior consistent statements.
• Smith v. State
  492 So. 2d 1063· Fla.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Derrick Smith's conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder because of multiple constitutional errors during trial, including improper comments on Smith's exercise of his right to remain silent and admission of a statement made after S
• United States v. Roth
  736 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 24×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's testimony about his agreement with the government, even without a limiting instruction, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severanc
• United States v. Piccolo
  723 F.2d 1234· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-16 ·cited 24×
  The indictment was insufficient because it lacked the specificity required to link the grand jury's concerns to the evidence presented at trial.
• United States v. Tucker
  716 F.2d 576· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's incompetence, which prejudiced his defense.
• Williams v. State
  407 So. 2d 223· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 24×·via Harmful Error Standard
  A trial court commits harmful error by sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment for attempted first degree murder without complying with juvenile sentencing statutes and without applying proper statutory maximums, and sentences must be reversed and remanded for resentencing in
• United States v. Pennington
  635 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 24×
  The dissent argues that evidence seized pursuant to a warrant not executed by a federal officer should be suppressed, rejecting the majority's application of the 'harmless error' rule.
• Wilson v. Estelle
  625 F.2d 1158· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-15 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The admission of evidence of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions, where no imprisonment was imposed, is permissible and any error from a conviction where a short sentence was imposed was harmless.
• Brey v. State
  382 So. 2d 395· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-04-09 ·cited 24×
  John Brey was convicted of auto theft after the trial court admitted oral statements he made to police that were not disclosed in the state's discovery response. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to conduct the mandatory Richardson inquiry required
• United States v. Spinks
  470 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-01 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that admitting a co-defendant's confession implicating the defendant was permissible when the defendant also provided a substantially similar confession, and that denying the defendant's request to show surveillance films during closing arguments was not an abuse o
• United States v. Williams
  464 F.2d 927· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-26 ·cited 24×
  The prosecutor's questions and argument revealing a defense witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment before a grand jury constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Johnson
  439 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-16 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding an informant's statements was prejudicial error requiring reversal of Johnson's conviction, but affirmed Golub's conviction due to sufficient evidence and lack of reliance on invalid presumptions.
• United States v. Carlson
  423 F.2d 431· 9th Cir.· 1970-02-02 ·cited 24×·via Harmless Error Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the insanity defense, nor did it err in striking the testimony related to that defense. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of a tape recording, the curtailment of cros
• United States v. Lewis
  406 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 24×·via Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(A) (Harmless Error)
  The court held that the convictions of Lewis and Sohn for conspiracy and substantive offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that certain evidentiary rulings and limitations on testimony did not constitute reversible error. Lewis's convictions on two counts were dismis
• Williams v. United States
  338 F.2d 286· D.C. Cir.· 1964-10-01 ·cited 24×
  Statements recorded contemporaneously by a government clerk, even if summarized in the third person, can be 'substantially verbatim' under the Jencks Act if they fairly represent the witness's own words and are producible for impeachment.
• Valentine John Karp v. United States
  277 F.2d 843· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress evidence because no proper motion was filed and that the denial of access to an FBI agent's report under the Jencks Act was harmless error as the excluded testimony was cumulative.
• United States v. Shirley
  884 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony, denying a motion to subpoena witnesses at government expense, admitting summary charts, denying a motion for acquittal, or denying a motion for continuance. The court affirmed the convicti