Also known as: harmless-error test · harmless error · harmless error doctrine · harmless error rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A rule excusing defects in will execution when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document as a will.
A rule excusing defects in will execution when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document as a will.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A standard under which a conviction stands despite constitutional or procedural error if the government shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A standard under which a conviction stands despite constitutional or procedural error if the government shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Hugo Hart printed his will leaving his estate to his niece and signed only the first page before dying suddenly. The niece offered the document for probate and introduced letters from Hart stating he wanted the draft to control his estate. The court excused the missing signature on the remaining pages because the letters supplied clear and convincing proof that Hart had adopted the document as his will.
Yes. A defect in execution is excused when the proponent shows by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent adopted the document as a will. This modern approach replaces strict compliance in many jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
Hakeem Harris was tried for robbery after police obtained a confession later ruled involuntary. The prosecutor mentioned the confession once in closing, but the state introduced three eyewitness identifications and surveillance footage placing Harris at the scene. The appellate court upheld the conviction because the remaining evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the confession.
Hannah Hughes faced drug charges after an undercover buy. At trial the prosecutor asked why she had not explained her presence to officers after arrest, but the court sustained an immediate objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question. The remaining testimony from the undercover officer and seized contraband established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so the improper question did not require reversal.
Hyun Han and a co-defendant were tried jointly for conspiracy. The government introduced the co-defendant's redacted statement that indirectly implicated Han. The trial court gave a limiting instruction, and the prosecution presented independent wiretap recordings and financial records tying Han to the scheme. The court of appeals found any Bruton violation harmless because the other evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hana Hashimoto was convicted of assault after an in-court identification. Police had conducted a post-indictment lineup without counsel, but the victim also identified Hashimoto from a properly conducted photo array shown before the lineup. The appellate court upheld the conviction because the photo identification supplied an independent source and the lineup error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hilda Hernandez challenged her arson conviction on the ground that the trial judge had improperly admitted a warrantless search. The remaining evidence included accelerant residue on her clothing, eyewitness testimony placing her at the scene with a gas can, and her own recorded admission to a friend. The court held that any Fourth Amendment error was harmless because the properly admitted proof would have convinced any rational trier of fact of guilt.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. This standard comes from the Supreme Court's adoption of the harmless error rule for constitutional violations.
Supporting sources
Admission of an involuntary confession is subject to harmless error review. The conviction stands if the prosecution demonstrates other overwhelming evidence of guilt independent of the confession.
Supporting sources
On habeas the petitioner must show the error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict rather than proving the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is more deferential to the state court judgment.
Supporting sources
…to invoke Anderson . I agree with the Government that the admission of the evidence now protested by petitioner was at most 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…