Also known as:harmless errors · harmless-error rule · harmless error doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
in probate law
A rule excusing defects in the execution of a will when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be the will.
2
in appellate procedure
Sense 1
1
in probate law
A rule excusing defects in the execution of a will when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be the will.
See Our Sources· 1 source
Restatements
Examples
Sense 2
2
in appellate procedure
An error committed during trial that does not affect a party's substantial rights and therefore does not require reversal of the judgment.
An error committed during trial that does not affect a party's substantial rights and therefore does not require reversal of the judgment.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
1
Defective Will Signature Excused
Hiroshi Hasegawa printed his will leaving his estate to his niece but omitted one witness signature required by statute. After his death the niece offered the document for probate and introduced testimony from two friends who watched him sign and declare it his will. The court admitted the will because the evidence showed clear intent despite the formal defect.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What must a proponent show to excuse a will execution defect under the harmless error rule?
The proponent must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to constitute the will. This standard applies to defects in execution, revocation, or revival.
Supporting sources
Examples5
Erroneous Evidence Admission Upheld
Hazel Hoffman was convicted of illegal firearm possession after the trial court admitted a document later found to violate a procedural rule. The appellate court reviewed the full record and found overwhelming independent proof of guilt from multiple eyewitnesses. The conviction stood because the error did not affect substantial rights.
United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174
In 1995 Samuel Mullet purchased land in Jefferson County, Ohio. That land became the Bergholz Amish community in 2001 when a sufficient number of ordained ministers qualified it as a separate Amish church district. The new community appointed Mullet as its bishop. As bishop, Mullet controlled all aspects of life in the Bergholz compound and had the ability to order the shunning of community members who failed to follow the tenets of their Amish faith.
In 2006 Mullet excommunicated several church members who questioned Bergholz community practices and his leadership. Included in the group were Lavern and Mattie Troyer, whose son Aden was married to Mullet's daughter Wilma, as well as Melvin and Anna Shrock, whose son Emanuel was married to Mullet's daughter Linda. The excommunications led to family divisions, including a divorce and a custody dispute. Amish bishops from across the country met and voted unanimously to reverse the excommunications.
From September 6 to November 9, 2011, several Bergholz community members committed five separate attacks on nine different individuals connected to the community by family or religious ties. The assailants sliced off the men's beards and cut the women's hair. The victims were seen as Amish hypocrites by the assailants.
A federal grand jury indicted sixteen members of the Bergholz community for violating and conspiring to violate the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as well as other charges. At trial, the government presented evidence that the assaults were motivated by the victims' religion, while the defendants presented evidence of personal and family disputes as alternative motives. The jury convicted all sixteen defendants of at least one hate-crime violation.
The district court instructed the jury that the victims' religion need only be a significant motivating factor even if other reasons existed. The defendants twice requested a but-for causation instruction, which the court rejected. The defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Hana Huang confessed after receiving warnings that omitted one phrase about appointed counsel. The prosecution introduced the confession plus bank records and accomplice testimony proving the fraud charges. The court affirmed the conviction because the remaining evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape.
On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery.
On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours.
On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
Counsel Performance Error Disregarded
Hugo Hart was convicted of robbery after his lawyer failed to object to one piece of testimony. The record contained video footage, victim identification, and forensic matches that independently proved the elements. The appellate court found the deficiency did not undermine confidence in the outcome.
Strickland v. Washington466 U.S. 668 (1984)
In September 1976, respondent David Washington committed a series of crimes over a ten-day period in the Miami area that included three brutal stabbing murders along with torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft.
After his two accomplices were arrested, Washington surrendered to police and gave a lengthy statement confessing to the third criminal episode. The State of Florida indicted him for kidnapping and murder and appointed an experienced criminal lawyer to represent him.
Washington waived his right to a jury trial against counsel's advice and pleaded guilty to all charges, including the three capital murder counts. In the plea colloquy he stated that he had committed a string of burglaries but had no significant prior criminal record and that he had been under extreme stress caused by his inability to support his family.
Counsel spoke with Washington about his background, contacted his wife and mother by telephone, but did not seek out character witnesses or request a psychiatric examination. At the sentencing hearing before the trial judge, counsel's strategy relied primarily on the plea colloquy to convey remorse and emotional stress and argued that these factors justified sparing Washington the death penalty. Counsel successfully moved to exclude Washington's rap sheet and decided not to request a presentence report because it would have included his criminal history.
The trial judge found multiple aggravating circumstances for each murder and no mitigating circumstances, sentencing Washington to death on each of the three murder counts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
Washington sought collateral relief in state court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds including failure to request a psychiatric report, investigate and present character witnesses, and seek a presentence investigation report. He submitted fourteen affidavits from friends, neighbors, and relatives willing to testify and two reports from a psychiatrist and psychologist. The state trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
Washington then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel testified, the District Court denied relief, concluding that although counsel made errors in judgment by failing to investigate mitigating evidence further, no prejudice resulted. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for application of a new framework it developed for analyzing ineffectiveness claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the proper standards for judging claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a capital sentencing proceeding.
Sentencing Instruction Mistake Ignored
Hope Howard received an enhanced sentence after the judge gave an erroneous instruction on one guideline factor. The sentencing record showed the same enhancement was independently supported by undisputed prior convictions and victim impact statements. The court upheld the sentence because the error left the result unchanged.
United States v. Booker543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Respondent Freddie Booker was charged with possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The jury heard evidence that he possessed 92.5 grams in his duffel bag and found him guilty. Based on the jury's findings and his criminal history, the Guidelines called for a base sentence of 210 to 262 months.
At sentencing, the district judge found by a preponderance that Booker possessed an additional 566 grams of crack and had obstructed justice. These findings raised the range to 360 months to life. The judge imposed 360 months.
In the companion case, respondent Ducan Fanfan was convicted of conspiracy involving at least 500 grams of cocaine. The jury verdict authorized up to 78 months. The judge found additional facts that would have raised the range to 188 to 235 months but declined to apply them after Blakely.
The Seventh Circuit held Booker's sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under Blakely and Apprendi. It remanded for resentencing based on jury findings. The Government sought certiorari in both cases, which the Court granted.
Harper Hill sued a corporation on behalf of a class of investors and the notice omitted one required disclosure. Every class member later received full information through supplemental mailings and none opted out. The court proceeded with the settlement because the omission did not impair any party's rights.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts472 U.S. 797 (USSC 1985)
Phillips Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma, produced or purchased natural gas from leased land in 11 states during the 1970s.
It sold most of the gas in interstate commerce at prices regulated by the Federal Power Commission, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Beginning in the mid-1970s Phillips proposed price increases. It collected higher amounts subject to refund with interest if disapproved. Phillips suspended royalty payments to lessors until final Commission approval. It paid the suspended royalties of $3.7 million in 1976, $4.7 million in 1977, and $2.9 million in 1978 without interest after the increases were approved.
In 1979 the Commission began investigating overcharges. In 1983 it issued an opinion ordering refunds. Royalty owners Irl Shutts, a Kansas resident, and Robert and Betty Anderson, Oklahoma residents owning leases in Oklahoma and Texas, filed suit in Kansas state court seeking interest on the suspended royalties. They sought to represent a class of 33,000 royalty owners later reduced to 28,100 members after 3,400 opted out and 1,500 could not be notified. Fewer than 1,000 class members resided in Kansas and only about one-quarter of one percent of the leases were located there.
The Kansas trial court certified the class under a state statute modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on an opt-out basis. It sent first-class mail notice describing the action and the right to opt out. The court applied Kansas law to award interest at Commission rates followed by the Kansas post-judgment rate of 15 percent. After the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1984.
2 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
When does an appellate court disregard a trial error as harmless?
An appellate court disregards the error when it does not affect substantial rights of a party. In criminal cases the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
Supporting sources
Does the harmless error doctrine apply to constitutional violations?
Yes. Constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis on direct review, though the government bears a heavier burden of showing the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
harmless error
, and two final contentions—one involving weight of the evidence and another improper prosecutor comment—seem to me without merit. I would therefore affirm Westover's conviction. In…