Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...error analysis be applied to prosecutorial comments on failure to testify. Way, Trafficante, and Gordon, however, are another matter because, after Rowe issued, the legislature enacted chapter 19554, section 309, Laws of Florida (1939), codified as section 924.33 (1941 and thereafter). [7] Section 924.33 *1134 differs from section 54.23 in two significant respects....

...Second, it explicitly provides that there shall be no presumption that errors are reversible unless it can be shown that they are harmful. Thus, Way, Trafficante, and Gordon, which purport to rely on legislative intent, are directly contrary to legislative intent as expressed in the plain words of section 924.33. [8] Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...The suggestion is made that it is wise public policy to hold that comments on failure to testify and post-arrest silence are per se reversible error. This Court is not the forum for a debate on wise public policy. The responsible branch of government has already established the public policy through section 924.33 that appellate courts will not reverse trial court judgments unless it is determined on the record that harmful error has occurred....

...Further, at least indirectly, it also highlighted for the jury the fact that DiGuilio was not testifying at trial and still had offered no plausible explanation. Under those circumstances and on this record, we conclude that the error was not harmless and constituted reversible error. § 924.33, Fla....

...554, 10 So. 822 (1892); Miller v. State, 15 Fla. 577 (1876); Barber v. State, 13 Fla. 675 (1871). [6] Originally enacted by chapter 6223, § 1, Laws of Florida (1911), currently codified as section 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1985). [7] The statute reads: 924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...hat error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. [8] There is no reference in Way, Trafficante, or Gordon to section 924.33. A review of the briefs filed in these cases shows that the state did not rely on, or even recognize the existence of, section 924.33....

...ilure to testify; and, in Gordon, that the issue had not been preserved and there was no comment on failure to testify. In a petition for rehearing on Way, which we denied, the statute untimely sought rehearing and reargument on the applicability of section 924.33....

...[9] In this connection, see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), where the Court recognized that Congress and the fifty states had the authority to enact harmless error statutes or rules, and had done so. Note, also, that, although section 924.33 was enacted prior to Chapman, it is consistent with Chapman....

...oceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...ctions were warranted materially hindered the defendant's trial preparation or strategy. We explained in DiGuilio that a defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error. This right has been recognized by the legislature in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that harmless error analysis is applicable to all judgments....

...per se reversal rule is not warranted in this context. It also leads us to agree with the State that continued application of the per se reversal rule to all Richardson violations would have the effect of "elevating form over substance," contrary to section 924.33....

...State, 367 So.2d 1020, 1022 (court must inquire as to whether the discovery violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and what effect the violation may have had on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial). [3] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...See McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 927 (“[B]road institutional concerns militate against increasing the number of errors deemed harmless.”). - 46 -  In DiGuilio, we addressed the relevant statutory authority, and explained why section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981), applied as opposed to section 59.041. See 491 So. 2d at 1133-34. Section 924.33 provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. This section is part of chapter 924, which is titled “Criminal Appeals and Collateral Review.” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003). The DiGuilio Court stated that section 924.33 applied because that statute: (1) applies to all judgments regardless of the type of error involved; and (2) explicitly provides that there shall be no presumption that errors are reversible unless it can be shown that they are harmful. See 491 So. 2d at 1133-34. Although section 59.041 did not apply in DiGuilio, the differences between this section and section 924.33 are not such as to render DiGuilio’s analysis inapposite....

...A judgment will not be reversed unless the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Padgett v. State, 84 Fla. 590, 94 So. 865 (1922); Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902). This long standing decisional rule has also been enacted as a statute. § 924.33, Fla....

...In other words, to have proven one case was to have proven the other. After examination of the entire record it does not appear that this error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, the judgment should not be reversed upon this ground. § 924.33, Fla....

...After examining the entire record, we conclude that the one improper question allowed by the trial court relating to defendant's possession of a gun, other than the murder weapon, almost two months after the crime and for which there was no curative instruction, was harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...It is because of this that we have on occasions reviewed highly prejudicial remarks even though no objection was made at the trial. The Attorney General concedes that comments of the type here involved should be discouraged. We are asked, however, to disregard the errors as harmless. Sections 54.23 and 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ROBERTS, J., dissents in part. ROBERTS, Justice (dissenting in part). I agree with all of the opinion by Mr. Justice THORNAL except his conclusion that the judgment should be reversed because of the improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney. Sec. 924.33, Fla....

...s remarks, prevented the appellant from having a fair and impartial consideration of the question of whether or not the jury should recommend mercy." And, in the opinion of the writer, the remarks complained of, if error, were harmless error under §§ 924.33 and 54.23, supra....

...t the improper remarks could not have influenced the jury, one way or the other, in its decision in this respect. Failing to see how the improper remarks in question could possibly have "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant", § 924.33, supra, insofar as the jury's decision against recommending mercy is concerned, I would hold the improper remarks, and the failure of the trial judge on his own initiative to strike them from the consideration of the jury, to be harmless error....

...But when they do not and when, as here, the evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming and no extenuating facts or circumstances that might have appealed to the jury in the exercise of their discretion in this respect appear in the record, the appellate court should not hesitate to apply the harmless error statutes, §§ 924.33 and 54.23, supra, in upholding convictions of murder in the first degree without recommendation, as against a contention that the jury was prejudicially influenced against recommending mercy by the error complained of....

...e has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove knowledge may be given by the witness himself. Clearly Beaudoin's statement was inadmissible. This error was not fundamental, however, and is therefore subject to harmless error analysis. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...o judgment should be reversed unless we are of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. It should not be presumed that error injuriously affects the substantial rights of the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; cf....

...Accordingly, we approve the result reached by the district court below. It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The district court's certified question encompasses that court's recognition of sections 59.041 and 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Section 924.33 provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...der in the first degree (thereby committing the crime of conspiracy) with the understanding that the means of accomplishing the unlawful homicide would be determined at a later date. The error of which Defendant complains was harmless and Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...NOTES [1] Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. [2] U.S.Const. Amend. IV. [3] Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768 (1889); Walden v. State, 319 So.2d 51 (Fla.App. 1975); Shelby v. State, 301 So.2d 461 (Fla.App. 1974); Knee v. State, 294 So.2d 411 (Fla.App. 1974). [4] Section 924.33 Florida Statutes....

...State, 348 So.2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Ennis v. State, 300 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). This error requires a reversal of the conviction and a new trial if the error prejudiced the defendant such that his substantive rights were violated. See Ennis, 300 So.2d at 328; § 924.33, Fla....

...s argument is unavailing because surely the witness' response to the prosecutor's *645 question made harmless any such error. That response was that the witness had not heard of any earlier incident involving appellant's shooting another person. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ra, constitutes a necessarily included offense; however, this Court in DeLaine, supra, applied the harmless error statute, explicitly opining: "It is apparent that we have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: "`No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, *439 after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...den., 279 So.2d 308. [12] 287 So.2d 138 (Fla.App. 1973); see also Clements v. State, 284 So.2d 700 (Fla.App. 1973), cert. den., 294 So.2d 654. [13] 291 So.2d 617 (Fla.App. 1974). [14] 297 So.2d 617 (Fla.App. 1974). [15] 299 So.2d 126 (Fla.App. 1974). [16] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...[2] The materiality requirement set forth in Brady was further refined in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and United States v. Bagley, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (1985). [3] In Richardson we also took note of Florida's harmless error statute, § 924.33, Fla....

...In answer to appellant's arguments assailing the convictions imposed, we respond that a judgment will not be reversed, unless the error of the evidence's admission was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Prejudice will not be presumed. Section 924.33, Fla....

...her crimes is so minor that it is unlikely that the defendant was prejudiced, or the evidence of guilt so strong that it is improbable that a contrary result would be reached." 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Section 233 (Supp. 1968). Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A....

...in conjunction with the entire record we believe there is no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the improper evidence been excluded. Therefore upon consideration of the above discussed case law, and Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A., we find that although it was error to admit the testimony in question, this error was not harmfully prejudicial to defendant and did not deny him a fair trial....

...In Hand v. State, supra , we noted: "The refusal by the trial courts so to charge in the instant consolidated cases was not harmless error." (p. 103) It is apparent that we have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...State, 18 Fla. 481. * * *" Section 932.20, F.S.A., provides: "No person whose opinions are such as to preclude him from finding any defendant guilty of an offense punishable with death shall be allowed to serve as a juror on the trial of any capital case." Section 924.33, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The record shows Appellant, in the presence of his attorney, later confessed and admitted his guilt at trial. It can be argued that the later confession rendered the admission into evidence of the improper first confession of no consequence and excuses it under Florida's harmless error statute, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: "924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...I must respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority in this case in that I do not conclude, as does the majority, that the introduction of the first statement made by the defendant, over objection, constitutes harmless error within the purview or intent of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...I dissent because the Trotter per se error rule has four deficiencies: (1) it lacks any adequate constitutional or statutory basis; (2) it ignores one of the primary purposes of peremptory challenges; (3) it is contrary to the presumption of juror impartiality; and (4) it violates section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2003), which requires the application of a harmless error standard....

...ocedural tools of no constitutional dimension that are designed to help the State fulfill its constitutional duty of providing fair and impartial juries to all parties. [18] And, because peremptory challenges are of no constitutional dimension, *107 section 924.33, as well as our precedent, require application of the harmless error standard of review....

...is contrary to our own precedent. Because peremptory challenges are only a statutory right given to help secure the constitutional right to a fair trial by jury, we are bound to apply a harmless error standard. The harmless error rule as codified in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2003), and as applied by our own precedent dictates this result. This Court interpreted section 924.33 in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1134 (Fla.1986), stating: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...To do so, however, we are obligated to perform a reasoned analysis which shows that this is true, and that, for constitutional reasons, we must override the legislative decision. (Original emphasis and footnote omitted; emphasis added.) In light of section 924.33, our statements in DiGuilio, and our historical application of the harmless error rule, I see no constitutional reason that supports a per se reversal rule in general or as applied in this case....

...Because there is no federal constitutional right to peremptory challenges and because this Court's own precedent makes it clear that these challenges are not of a constitutional dimension, to require per se reversal in a case where a party receives what the constitution requires violates section 924.33 as interpreted by this Court in DiGuilio....

...ieve we are bound to modify the per se reversal rule that this Court has interpreted Trotter to require. As we acknowledged in DiGuilio, absent a legitimate constitutional reason to override the legislative codification of the harmless error rule in section 924.33, we must require that a defendant show actual harm in order for a conviction to be reversed....

...the second count. Brooks v. U.S., 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699; State v. Hammond, 188 N.C. 602, 125 S.E. 402. Under the circumstances the alleged error with reference to count two could at most be harmless error within the intendment of Section 924.33, F.S.A....

...In my opinion Frazier represents the correct application. The harmless error doctrine is based on the proposition that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not necessarily an errorless one. The defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the error. See § 924.33, Fla....

...neous felony murder instruction. If evidence of either theory is sufficient to convict, and the record supported the correctly charged theory, a jury's reliance on the other erroneously charged theory cannot be said to have prejudiced the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977), provides an appellate court shall not presume that an error injuriously affected substantial rights of a defendant....

...unless through rejecting the qualified person, the necessity of accepting an objectionable juror has been created. It should be enough if it appears that the case has been tried by an impartial jury. Leaptrot v. State, 51 Fla. 57, 40 So. 616 (1906). Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...ho made it. The point appears to be well taken but, in view of an abundance of other evidence of the physical surroundings at the time and place in question, the admission of said pictorial exhibit is held to be harmless. See Fla. Stat. § 54.23 and § 924.33, F.S.A....

...As for my observations about the Supreme Court's decision in Murray, there are four which I wish to express: 1. It seems to me that the "harmless error" principle is a thread that now must visibly permeate every aspect of criminal prosecution. Very little is said about the existing harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), in our opinions, although the Supreme Court of Florida, in Jones v....

...68, "As a general rule, specific acts, whether of good conduct or bad conduct, cannot be shown in rebuttal of evidence as to character." We have followed the general rule in several cases. See Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., reads as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...It is my view that Florida's time honored harmless error rule and statute mandates affirmance of the judgment. When lead footed justice reaches the end of its long and tedious journey, it should not be caused to falter upon an imagined barricade and required to repeat the trip. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981); Jenkins v....

...Peoples Bank of Sanford, 73 Fla. 1165, 1174, 75 So. 848, 852 (1917). Even if the hospital records in this case were improperly admitted, their admission is harmless at best and, therefore, should not serve as a basis for a reversal and a new trial in this case. See § 924.33, Fla....

...The Police Chief's alleged statement to Franklin, although hearsay, would fall under the "state of mind" exception insofar as it bears on the question of his bias, motive, and intent. Cf., Allen Morris Co. v. McNally, Fla.App.3d 1974, 305 So.2d 79. We are well aware of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, the harmless error statute, but we cannot agree that the errors here were harmless....

...1968, 212 So.2d 95. We agree with the state's contention that it is a long-settled rule that a criminal case will not be reversed where the evidence of guilt is ample, unless substantial rights have been violated and injury therefrom is clearly demonstrated, § 924.33 Fla....

...Ergo, we conclude the trial court erred in the admission of the hearsay testimony of the sexual counselor. Having determined that error was committed below, we must consider whether the error requires reversal or falls into the category of harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...In other words, the court inquires generally, whether, but for the erroneous ruling, it is likely that the result below would be different," Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla. 1981), and "it shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...e District Court's holding as to these offenses was in error. This determination, however, does not dispose of the case. As pointed out in Delaine v. State: [7] "[W]e have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: `No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.'" We must, therefore, determine whether this error is harmless or reversible error. While the District Court states that it has not overlooked § 924.33, in deciding that the failure to instruct as to assault was reversible error, the District Court failed to reach its decision "after an examination of all the appeal papers......

...tantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, we feel that the cause should be remanded for a new trial, with appropriate instructions given." While it may be difficult to determine if an error is injurious in a given case, that is what is required by § 924.33....

...ficer with a knife, we are compelled to the opinion that these errors were not harmless but injuriously affected the substantial right of the appellant to be tried only on admissible evidence material to proper issues in the cause. See § 59.041 and § 924.33, Fla....

...There are additional reasons why the introduction of the defendant's pre-arrest statements regarding the cigarettes, "clothes", and "stuff" should not be considered reversible error even assuming that Miranda warnings were required. These statements were so inconsequential that their admission, if error, was harmless. See Section 924.33, F.S....

...d and that it shall be kept together in some convenient place till it agrees on a verdict or is discharged. Section 919.02, F.S.A., provides for separation of the jury for a definite period. Section 920.05, F.S.A., details grounds for new trial, and Section 924.33, F.S.A., provides that no judgment shall be reversed for error unless it is shown to have injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...In the statute twelve grounds authorizing the setting aside of a verdict or arresting a judgment are given. The twelfth ground provides: "The court shall * * * grant a new trial when from any other cause not due to his own fault the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial * * *." But section 924.33, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., which must necessarily be considered in connection with the foregoing statute, contains the plain mandate that "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the ap...

...t error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." How can it be said, in view of the unequivocal provisions of section 924.33, that merely because the trial judge allowed the jurors to separate for the night the substantial rights of the defendant were thereby prejudiced to such an extent as to require the judgment to be set aside and a new trial awarded? Whe...

...on of the trial jury. I presume that anyone obliged to suffer imprisonment might feel that he had some ground for complaint in that the confinement and restraint operated to deprive him of his right to liberty; but this is not the type of thing that section 924.33 aims at when it says that "No judgment shall be reversed unless * * * error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant", and "It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantia...

...to give the third degree murder charge. Under these facts, it can hardly be argued that appellant should be precluded from raising the trial court's failure to give the requested charge. The state next argues that the harmless error rule applies. (F.S. 924.33) Several decisions may be cited which apply the harmless error rule to the failure of the trial court to instruct on lesser included offenses....

...Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137. We find no evidence that the error, if any, was fundamental; in fact, we find no evidence that the error, if any, was other than harmless. Therefore, it could not present a basis for reversal even if it were properly before this Court. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A.; North v....

...NOTES [1] Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968). [2] State v. Wilson, 276 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1973); State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1972); DeLaine v. State, 262 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1972). [3] Rule 1.510, Cr.P.R., now renumbered Rule 3.510, Cr.P.R. [4] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; Sloan v....

...few minutes after defendant departed rendered mother's testimony of child's statements admissible as res gestae). However, we have determined after a thorough review of the record that this error in admitting the counselor's testimony was harmless. § 924.33, Fla....

...ears to be in conformity with the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Florida in Cumbie v. State, 345 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1977), Case No. 49,134 not yet reported. The effect of the opinion is to explicitly declare the harmless error statute (F.S. 924.33) and doctrine ( Urga v....

...rd discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant. * * * Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...her of the defendants' constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the brief exchange between Galasso and Mr. Brumley. The facts before us in the instant case clearly appear to call for a timely application of our harmless error statute. Section 924.33 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...[1] The voluntary, non-coerced statements of the accused, after he was warned of his right to remain silent and to counsel and had waived those rights, cannot be said to have been compelled so as to invoke the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. [2] F.S. § 924.33.

...sailor and flee "north." In any event, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty in the absence of the claimed error, and, thus, assuming it was error to admit the testimony, the error was harmless. § 924.33, Fla....

...rocedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." and Section 924.33 entitled "When judgment not to be reversed or modified." provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...Even if it be concluded that the procedure followed by the State was erroneous because it lacked specificity as to the action being taken, a review of the record does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that such error "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." See F.S., Section 924.33, F.S.A....

...Further, if error had been committed it would merely be harmless, as the proposed testimony was of a cumulative nature. Groover v. Hammond, 73 Fla. 1155, 75 So. 857; Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So. 338; BCK Land, Inc. v. Cook, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 717; § 924.33, Fla....

...kes the jury the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, including the reasonableness, probability and credibility of a defendant. Barnes v. State, 93 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1957). The State asks us to consider the error, if any, to be harmless under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977), but it is difficult to characterize the cumulative effect of the improper testimony of four police officers as harmless....

...Ordinarily the remedy for an error in the exclusion of relevant evidence is a reversal for a new trial. Walker v. Willis, 72 Fla. 119, 72 So. 517 (1916). But here the state argues that even if the exclusion of the testimony was error it was not prejudicial error within the meaning of § 924.33, Fla....

...1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] § 924.33, Fla....

...The Court denied defendants' motions for mistrial based upon such incidents. It is elementary that it is not every error that may be committed in the trial of a criminal case that will provide the basis for a reversal of the judgment; such error must be fundamental and prejudicial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...s added) The issue of the voluntariness of the confession has been waived and, further, its admission could not have been harmful. Coggins v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 400; Boyd v. State, Fla. App. 1964, 162 So.2d 271; Simpson v. State, supra; § 924.33, Fla....

...Dupree v. State, 125 Fla. 58, 169 So. 600 (1936); Ho Yin Wong v. State, 359 So.2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1978); Durcan v. State, 350 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); § 924.33, Fla....

...State, 1930, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1. On oral argument the state admitted that the court erred in limiting the cross examination of these three eye witnesses by the appellant but took the position that such error was harmless and under Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A., did not require a reversal....

...However, having moved for severance which motion was granted, he was tried separately, was convicted of the crimes charged, was adjudicated guilty by the trial court and was sentenced to a term of six months to three years in the state prison. [2] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides: "When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...dicial, harmless error. Jordan, ___ So.2d at ___, 23 FLW at D2132-33. As to the latter ground, which we find particularly persuasive, we emphasize that the Reform Act has—we think, quite salutarily [3] —rendered the general harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1997); see § 59.041, Fla.Stat....

...rder to be a ground for reversal an error in the rejection or admission of testimony must be shown to have been prejudicial to the defendant. As early as 1911 we had a "harmless error" statute. Section 54.23, Fla. Stat. The 1939 Criminal Code, in *8 § 924.33, Fla....

...ch the legality of the trial. The appellant has not demonstrated that the admission of the evidence, if error, was harmful in any manner, and the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, in keeping with the requirements of F.S.A. § 54.23 and § 924.33, and the decisions in Kelly v....

...However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable criteria and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a hearing. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1981) and Recinos v. State, 420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1984)....

...cle identification, is of such quality that the jury could have found, as it did, that appellant was guilty as charged in the information. Accordingly, we conclude that in light of the record the complained-of error is considered to be harmless. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; Butler v....

...with the psychiatrists, and under Fla. Stat. § 90.242, F.S.A. his conversations with the psychiatrists were privileged. Cf., Schetter v. Schetter, Fla. App. 1970, 239 So.2d 51. Moreover, any error in the court's ruling was harmless under Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...o prejudicial inferences on the part of the jury. There being no reasonable basis upon which a different verdict could have been reached, if admission of the shotgun was error, it was harmless. See Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 924.33, Fla....

...roduction of the confession into evidence at trial. Furthermore, it appears that there was other sufficient competent evidence, disregarding the confession, to sustain the finding of guilt and the error, if any, was at worst harmless. See Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A.; Coggins v....

...staken belief that such an error is, or was at one time, per se reversible. The supreme court, however, has never held that it is. In the absence of such a declaration by the supreme court, all judgments are subject to a harmless error analysis. See § 924.33, Fla....

...The defendant failed to properly object to the procedure he complains of as to discovery pertaining to the tape recordings and he failed to demonstrate how any of the rulings or procedures in the trial court injuriously affected his substantial rights. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 F.S.A....

...The prosecuting witness testified to the same effect, and her testimony in combination with other competent evidence convincingly supports the conclusion that the defendant did perform the acts in question with the described results. See Fla. Stat. § 54.23 F.S.A.; [2] Fla. Stat. § 924.33 F.S.A....

...Adams and he, the appellant, would pay off. Under the facts shown in this case if it was error for the witness to identify Mr. Adams as the man who had been convicted the day before, it was not harmful and was not prejudicial in any manner to the appellant. F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...Moreover, the defendant and 3 alibi witnesses testified regarding principally the matter of identification, so that the question was thoroughly gone into and the incidental, though unfortunate, references to "mug shots" are well within the harmless error statute (§ 924.33)....

...The appellant received the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and there is nothing in the record to arouse suspicion as to the fairness or integrity of the eminent trial judge. The other assignments of error have been considered and are without merit. F.S.A. § 924.33....

...In this particular case, because the defendant practically admitted that he was the perpetrator of the robbery and his sole defense was that of voluntary intoxication, we might well have held the admission of the cash and handgun into evidence over his objection constituted harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...uestion of great public importance as to whether a comment on the right to silence, a constitutional violation, was per se reversible error. At the time DiGuilio was decided section 924.051(7) was not in effect; however, we then had, and still have, section 924.33, which provided: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. The DiGuilio court observed: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...mpting the State" to present evidence of appellant's tattoos and scars. Asbury, 765 So.2d at 965. Finally, the lower court's actions cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when reviewed in the context of their significance at trial. See § 924.33, Fla....

...mless error. As an appellate court, we are permitted to reverse a judgment only if "after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." § 59.04, Fla. Stat. (1985); see also § 924.33, Fla....

...However, because we conclude that appellant is not entitled to a new trial even if Coney applies, we find it unnecessary to undertake the task of prognostication in an effort to divine the court's intent regarding those cases to which Coney will apply. Instead, we assume, for purposes of this opinion, that Coney does apply. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1995), mandates that "[n]o [criminal] judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The State filed a timely appeal, and in the appeal challenges the departure reasons set forth in the transcript. The delay in filing must be viewed as harmless error. See Weiss, 720 So.2d at 1115. The Criminal Appeal Reform Act has—we think, quite salutarily—rendered the general harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1997); see § 59.041, Fla....

...The hospital clerk's testimony regarding a telephone conversation with a Mrs. Cox should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1983). Nevertheless, the admission of this hearsay testimony was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt. See § 924.33, Fla....

...very criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Cr.P.R. 1.020. It is apparent to us that such rules should be considered by an appellate court in conjunction with the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides that rulings or proceedings in criminal cases that are not prejudicial or harmful do not require reversal....

...conference or to be present *912 when the court answered the jury's questions during deliberations. The questions were legal definitions. Both counsel consented to the answers and we find no harmful error. Meek v. State, 487 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1986); section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1985); accord Stano v....

...epting the same, it is our view that insofar as the failure to ascertain the factual basis for a negotiated guilty plea in a state prosecution may constitute error, such error may be harmless error and, if so, cannot serve as the basis for reversal. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...e verdict. A statute provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. § 924.33, Fla....

...*899 Thus we agree with petitioner that evidence of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test is inadmissible. The trial court sustained his objections, however, and an examination of the record does not indicate that the substantial rights of the petitioner were so affected that a mistrial should have been declared. F.S.A. § 924.33....

...Evidence of his guilt of kidnapmurder was overwhelming, and any premeditation to murder arose in the course of the kidnapping. In these circumstances the erroneous charge could not have seriously misled the jury from its sworn duty to try the accused on the charges made by the indictment. See § 924.33, F.S....

the substantial rights of the appellant. See Section 924.33, Fla. Stats. 1941 (F.S.A.). The evidence shows

...inion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." (Emphasis supplied.) And F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...The error in the instant case was not harmless; I, therefore, concur. I write, however, to express my understanding of Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1988), cited by the majority, and our responsibilities as judicial officers in reviewing criminal proceedings which may contain errors which are harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, states, When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...Since the trial judge, sitting without a jury, stated that he based his findings exclusively upon such evidence and that he disregarded the challenged evidence, the error, if any, in the admission of such evidence was harmless. Section 54.23 [1] and 924.33, [2] Fla.Stats., F.S.A.; Butler v....

...[2] "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." Section 924.33, Fla.Stats., F.S.A....

...e manager's description. The store manager gave his description to police after perceiving Miles and the incident that occurred moments before. In light of the error, we turn to the issue of whether the error was harmless and we conclude that it is. Section 924.33, Florida Statues, provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...Rather, she testified that Brooke told her mother. As appellant's counsel only asked Brooke at hearing whether he discussed it with the victim and never inquired about conversations with the mother, appellant has not shown that the State used false testimony. [3] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...prior tainted police line-up and the trial court could have found *219 that line-up identification was based upon observation of the crime and not the tainted police line-up. Alternatively, the introduction of such identification was harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...e 3.200 constitutes reversible error. Under both the statutory law and case law of this state, a judgment shall not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. § 924.33, Fla....

...regarded as no more than a poor choice of words. In any case, we are convinced, upon a review of the entire record, that the statement could not have affected the jury's determination in any way. We are admonished by the Harmless Error Statute, F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A., and by common sense that otherwise proper trials are not to be reversed merely because an academic analysis of a single statement reveals a defect in rhetoric....

...The fact that this witness was in the pretrial program was relevant to the credibility of this witness, *1360 and the exclusion of such testimony was error. Now we must consider whether the judgment should nevertheless be affirmed under the harmless-error rule. § 924.33, Fla....

...rtheless we have reviewed all of the testimony presented to the jury and we fail to find that appellant's conviction resulted in a miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice dictate the granting of a new trial within the scope and meaning of § 924.33, Fla....

...s counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against a sentence of death." Rule 3.780(c) was designed to comport with this statute and should not be raised to the level of a substantive right which outweighs the statutory mandate. Rather, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), which codifies the harmless error rule, should apply to an error in the order of argument in the sentencing phase of a capital case. Section 924.33 specifies that "[n]o judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." A...

...We find error in the lower court's admission of collateral crime evidence during the course of Steward's trial on the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of 16. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, however, we find such error to have been harmless, and affirm Steward's conviction and sentence. Section 924.33, Fla....

...n separate Rule 3.490 under Section XI pertaining to The Verdict. [7] On at least five recent occasions, the Fifth District has certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Can an appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), to the failure of a trial court to give the jury instruction required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) if the appellant's guilt is clearly established and the appellate court determines the error could not have affected the verdict?" See Meeks v....

...Were we free to do so, we would hold the failure to give the instruction harmless error because the evidence against appellant is strong and clear. However, Tascano *473 leaves us in doubt as to the applicability of the traditional harmless error rule set forth in sections 59.041 and 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979). As we did in Gee v. State, 400 So.2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we therefore certify to the Supreme Court the following question which we deem to be of great public importance: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLATE...

...uries cannot properly weigh and evaluate conclusions based on different standards of rigor." 660 So.2d at 262. I do not read the mere quoting of this scientific observation, however, as an abandonment of the statutorily required harmless error test. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...to presume error in the admission of DNA evidence from the kind of observation quoted by the court in Hayes. Until and unless the court explicitly requires a per se rule on DNA evidence, I believe we are required to apply the harmless error test of section 924.33....

...error occurred in the trial court. Prejudicial error is defined in § 924.051(1)(a) as "an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." When the above provisions became effective in 1996, we already had, and still have § 924.33, which provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...ons). Generally, a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion and injury to substantial rights of the appellant. Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 924.33, Fla....

...credibility of which was in no way reflected upon except for the fact that the Negroes were admittedly accomplices, certainly pointed to the conclusion of guilt reached by the jury. In this case it is entirely appropriate to apply the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ss in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." *328 In addition, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...1976); Ackerman v. State, 372 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also Germany v. Estelle, 639 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.1981). Second, Harrell may prove that the error injuriously affected a substantial right protected by state law, also shifting the burden to the State. Section 924.33, Fla....

...[4] For the same reasons that we find no violation of the federal right to due process, we also find no violation of a substantial right protected by state law. We do find, consistent with Florida law, that Harrell has also failed to prove reversible error under Section 924.33, Fla....

...at error may have contributed to accused's conviction to constitutional error), the standard of trial fairness applies, see, e.g., United States v. Ford, supra , and the burden remains on the defendant to prove the error resulted in an unfair trial, § 924.33, Fla....

...[2] Chapman, supra, involves an erroneous evidentiary ruling. If federal constitutional error can be proved, then we assume that the reasonable doubt standard of Chapman, supra applies to cases such as this where the evidentiary ruling was correct, but where the objects of that ruling remained in court. [3] § 924.33, Fla....

...We do not feel that the evidence as to the crime under Count 3, even though improper and not qualified under Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) in the trial under Counts 1 and 2, was of such moment as to require reversal of the conviction under Counts 1, and 2, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

appellate court is “obliged to affirm that judgment”); § 924.33, Florida Statutes (2009) (“No judgment shall be

...State, supra, allowed the unconstitutionality of Section 800.01 to be raised at the appellate level even though it was not raised at trial. Somewhat by way of postscript we ask ourselves if this court, consistent with its judicial obligation, could somehow term the error here outlined as harmless under Section 924.33, F.S....

...1972, 269 So.2d 692, or that failure to reach fruition is of the essence of an attempt to commit a crime. So until the rule is changed by the court of last resort, like it or not, we are all obliged to follow it. Next we consider whether the harmless error statute, § 924.33, F.S....

...From our examination of the record, we find that where merited, the trial judge gave a curative instruction. We do not find that Lewis's substantial rights were affected or that any prosecutorial comments deprived him of a fair trial. See Henry v. State, 290 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); § 924.33, Fla....

1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). Additionally, under section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2009), “[n]o judgment shall

...eory of duress. In these circumstances the court's failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of section 90.803(23) was harmless, and does not require reversal as it did not affect appellant's substantial rights. See Salter, supra ; section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...ceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration.' Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz., F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...The doctor clearly was not a "custodian or other qualified witness" as contemplated in Florida's Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Fla. Stat. § 92.36, which was controlling at this trial. However, given the totality of the evidence, this error was harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33....

...Further, again paraphrasing Chapman, we can safely say, in my view, that the error did not contribute to the defendant's conviction. Hopefully, the Supreme Court, on review of this case, will adopt Chapman. As I pointed out in the Boatwright opinion, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), exists as this state's harmless error statute....

...Under these circumstances, the court's failure specifically to include the intent element in the definition of the greater crime — of which the defendant was impliedly acquitted [4] — was not only not fundamental error, but was affirmatively shown to have been harmless. [5] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); James v....

...The defendants' third contention is that they are entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks or comments made by the prosecutor throughout the proceedings. We agree with the state that these comments did not result in reversible error. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat....

...at an error has been committed does not necessarily require reversal on appeal. Smith v. State, 217 So.2d 359, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Furthermore, "[i]t shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." § 924.33, Fla....

...Constitutional error may not be deemed harmless if a reasonable possibility exists that the error may have contributed to the conviction or that the error may not be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Nowlin v. State, 346 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 1977), citing Chapman v. California, supra ; see § 924.33, Fla....

...The error clearly did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of appellant. The other points on appeal have been carefully considered and are found by us to be without merit. Affirmed. SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Florida Statute 919.16. [2] Florida Statute 924.33....

...review depends on the nature of the ruling in each case."). We also note that the state has not even attempted to show how it might have been prejudiced by the suppression of the mere speck of defendant's statements occurring after his inquiry. See § 924.33, Fla....

...s, except in cases otherwise provided by law." [2] Cox v. State, (Fla.App. 1966) 192 So.2d 11, 13. [3] Porter v. State, (Fla. 1964) 160 So.2d 104, 110. [4] See also Gates v. State (Fla.App. 1967) 201 So.2d 786, opinion filed August 8, 1967. [5] F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Also to be considered is section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987), the chapter entitled "Appeals." This latter section is much like the former and states: 924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...nguage employed in Lomax intimates that the harmless error doctrine cannot be invoked whenever there has been a failure to instruct on any lesser-included offense, it is disapproved." (363 So.2d at page 1064) We hold that the harmless error statute, Section 924.33, is applicable, and that it has not been shown that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant....

...[5] Since, in the fragile circumstantial *1226 case before us, [6] the hearsay testimony was the only evidence which tended to cast Libertucci's activities in a sinister light, we conclude that the error in admitting this testimony injuriously affected substantial rights of Libertucci, see § 924.33, Fla....

...[6] The weaker the case, the greater the danger that the inadmissible evidence unfairly tipped the scales against the defendant. See Richardson v. State, supra . [7] We perceive no meaningful difference between the "injuriously affects substantial rights" standard for determining harm found in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979) (applicable to the review of criminal cases only) and the "results in a miscarriage of justice" standard found in Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979) (applicable to the review of both civil and criminal cas...

...Read literally and in isolation, the burden imposed by the statute to demonstrate that an error "harmfully affected the judgment or sentence" appears virtually impossible for a defendant to meet. It appears, therefore, that section 924.051(7) should be read in conjunction with section 924.33, Florida Statutes, the prior "harmless error" statute, which was not eliminated upon the enactment of section 924.051(7). Section 924.33 states: 924.33....

...We begin with the proposition that a statute must be construed so that it will be constitutional. See Russo v. Akers, 701 So.2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); State v. Stalder, 630 So.2d 1072 (Fla.1994); Florida Department of Education v. Glasser, 622 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1993);. Our supreme court has held that under section 924.33, the burden imposed on the state was to show "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the [jury's recommendation] or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [outcome]." State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986). When read in conjunction with section 924.33 and DiGuilio, we conclude a defendant meets the burden of section 924.051(7) if he demonstrates a "reasonable *415 possibility" that the error complained of contributed to the verdict....

...NOTES [1] The United States Supreme Court has not yet had occasion to rule on the constitutional validity of sanctions imposed for failure to comply with notice of alibi rules. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83, n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). [2] Although Florida's harmless error statute, Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1975), provides that an appellate court shall not presume that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant, when the error reaches constitutional magnitude it must be judged by federal standards and the holding in Ch...

...give instructions as to them. The error in failing to give an instruction on simple assault was harmless, however, in view of the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. Wilson, supra ; DeLaine v. State, Fla. 1972, 262 So.2d 655; F.S., § 924.33 F.S.A....

...substantial right protected by state law or violated a constitutional right, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that, the error aside, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Harrell v. State, 405 So.2d 480, 482 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); see also § 924.33, Fla....

...There is no doubt that the lower court erred in not holding a Richardson hearing after being requested to do so. Nevertheless, if this were an ordinary case, we would unhesitatingly affirm the judgment below on the virtually self-evident ground that the failure to do so was simply harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...endant's care and control of the child was with the mother's approval at the time the crime was committed. Concluding, on the pivotal question, that the factual scenario of this case is contemplated by Heuring, a harmless error analysis is mandated. § 924.33 Fla....

...It is this latitude which removes the remark in question here from the rule of the Jacobs case cited by the majority, where the prejudicial remark was made in the course of testimony by police officers. The technical error here did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

...However, because we are aware the court did not discuss the traditional harmless error doctrine and because we are convinced it should apply in this case we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question which we deem to be of great public importance: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, *468 FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a) FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPEL...

...1957); McRae v. State, 383 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). As to the remainder, it at best was harmless. Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Wells v. State, 256 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1975)....

...trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." While it is possible, as the defendant suggests, that a "spill over" effect of this evidence may have caused the jury to infer "like father, like son" and unfairly convict the defendant, section 924.33 provides that "......

...287 (1903) (error as to instruction on first-degree murder harmless when defendant convicted of third-degree murder); Day v. State, 54 Fla. 25, 44 So. 715 (1907) (error as to instruction on first-degree murder harmless when defendant convicted of second-degree murder); § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1985); § 924.33, Fla....

...lity and legal consequences of Bolen's knowing he had been in an accident but not that an injury or death was involved. Therefore, it affirmatively appears that any error which arguendo occurred with regard to this point could not have been harmful. Section 924.33, Fla....

...and requested the court to either reread all the instructions or to provide the jury with a copy of the instructions pursuant to CrPR 3.400(c). The state also contends that any error in this case should be treated as harmless error under Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...photographic lineup. Unlike those cases, however, the in-court identification of the defendant was not severely challenged, and there was no alibi or other defense asserted. It therefore clearly appears from this record that the error was harmless. Section 924.33, Fla....

...ndants; as such, the instant case is distinguishable on these points from Kaplow v. State, 157 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), relied upon for reversal herein. We see no merit to the corollary hearsay point raised as it was, at best, a harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...The statement not only lacks the necessary reliability but its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The jury should not have heard or seen the statement. We must next determine whether the error "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant," section 924.33, Fla....

...After examining the proffered testimony of the three excluded witnesses, together with all of the other evidence and testimony presented in this case, and applying the harmless error rule as we are required to do, we cannot conclude that the exclusion of these witnesses requires reversal. See § 924.33, Fla....

...ful error, has been demonstrated on this point. See Jackson v. State, 328 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Henderson v. State, 304 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jenkins v. State, 208 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) cert. denied, 212 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1968); § 924.33, Fla....

...oceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...alid reason for departure, to which the state confesses error. Any error in denying the motion for mistrial is purely harmless when the totality of the evidence showed the appellant was a willing participant in the crime and had committed the crime. § 924.33, Florida Statute (1991)....

...ter the time it was testified the waiver was signed, was action by him consistent with the existence of the waiver, and inconsistent with an absence thereof. The error, if any, in regard to the last mentioned ruling of the trial court, was harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The totally unnecessary question regarding the photo album begged for the highly prejudicial answer which may have created an inference in the jury's mind that the defendant had previously been involved with the police. The reference here is not harmless within the meaning of section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...tion occurred after the effective date. This sentencing error was not rendered harmless merely because the defendant was sentenced concurrently to a greater sentence on the new offense which violated his probation. First, the harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes, applies to judgments and not sentences and, secondly, the conviction of the later greater offense could be itself defective and subject to reversal or vacation....

...After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel we agree with appellant that the court erred in admitting the three exhibits into evidence, however, we disagree with appellant's conclusion that the introduction of the items deprived her of a fair trial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The law in Florida is that a judgment of conviction should not be reversed unless the error complained of injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1973); Casso v. State, 182 So.2d 252 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

affected “the substantial rights of the appellant,” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2010),3 nor “resulted in a miscarriage

...record was so overwhelming, that the technical error, if any, in giving the above jury instruction in no sense contributed to the instant conviction and, *1214 therefore, could not have "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." § 924.33, Fla....

...eal, Fla. Stat.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.13(i), does not require reversal, but do so only on the ground that, under the circumstances of this case and considering the totality of the instructions to the jury, no harmful error has been demonstrated. Sec. 924.33, Fla....

...the prosecutor in closing argument. An objection made thereto at trial by defendant's counsel was sustained by the court. Considered in light of the evidence in the case the challenged remark of the prosecutor did not constitute harmful error. Under § 924.33 it is provided that a judgment should not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after examination of all of the appeal papers that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

harmful. The judgment is affirmed on authority of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, 1941. Affirmed. BROWN, C

...d on appeal. Neither was there any showing that the petitioner was prejudiced by the procedure. The error was harmless. Although there is conflict, we should not disturb the decision of the trial court and of the District Court of Appeal. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

complete record that prejudicial error occurred”); § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003) (“No judgment shall be reversed

...r and does include some other person. It is impossible to know whether the jury would have reached the same verdict had it included the juror who was struck for an impermissible reason. Accordingly, even under the harmless error analysis mandated by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991), the only appropriate remedy is to remand such a case for a new trial. Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...real impact on the outcome of this case. Stated differently, the above errors complained of, even if they had not occurred, would have made no difference whatever in the ultimate and inevitable outcome of this case. This being so, we are required by Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), to affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review — although, of course, we do not condone the errors complained of, and in a closer case on the issue of guilt or innocence, a different result might very well obtain....

...or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

of justice” standard. The first is found in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), and is applicable

217; Grech v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 216; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. As to the question of discovery

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. UPCHURCH, Judge. REVERSED and REMANDED but, as in Gee v. State, 400 So.2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(A), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLATE...

...court when it approved our opinion in Krawzak. Florida has two harmless error statutes, the one involved here, section 59.041, and the harmless error statute to be applied in criminal appeals. With regard to the latter, our supreme court has stated: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Considering the evidence in its totality, it appears to us this is an appropriate case for application of the harmless error statute. § 924.33 F.S....

...Long, supra , to affirm the lower court award of fees to the plaintiff broker on the grounds it provided a ready, willing and able buyer for the defendant's property. As concerns a complaint by defendant about certain evidentiary rulings, the receipt of hearsay was, at best, only harmless error. F.S. 924.33 (1973)....

in the instant case, to apply the provisions of § 924.33 Fla.Stat.,1 and we therefore affirm the judgment

...olding of this Court in McArthur v. Cook, supra . However, there is no basis for this Court to hold that such error has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, such error cannot be the basis of a reversal. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...Appellant raises five issues on appeal; only two merit discussion. For the reasons explained below, we reverse Appellant’s conviction for aggravated battery with discharge of a firearm, and instruct the trial court to reduce the conviction to aggravated battery, and resentence Appellant accordingly. See § 924.33, Fla....

den. 393 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 452, 21 L.Ed.2d 442; § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and see 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals

...We are, nevertheless, obliged to conduct a harmless error inquiry. See, e.g., § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred"); § 924.33, Fla....

...We conclude that he should have been given his Miranda rights before being questioned about control of the bedroom. Although the state has not argued that the failure to give the Miranda warning was harmless, our independent review for harmlessness, which we are required to do under section 924.33, Florida Statutes, reveals evidence that the bedroom contained two credit cards and a social security card in appellant's name....

reversal, however, are few. That is because section 924.33 of our statutes generally prohibits us from

contending that it was harmless error under Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. The state argues that the

doubt. Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1982); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1987). The upward departure sentence

denying the requested instruction were harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1989). Affirmed.

charge or instruction to the jury. F.S.1967, Section 924.33, F.S.A., relating to criminal procedure provides:

with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes"). Because Greathouse

impeachment purposes would be harmless in nature. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975); see Urga v. State

v. State, 111 Fla. 506, 149 So. 570 (1933); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977).

authority of Davis v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So.2d 289; § 924.33 Fla.Stat.

harmful so as to require or justify reversal. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 Albano v. State, Fla.1956,

appellant’s rights were not injuriously affected. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975). Lastly, appellant

battery upon a victim physically helpless to resist. § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1985). Because this court has previously

there is in the record is harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1971), F.S.A. Affirmed. MANN, C. J., and LILES

- 18 - proceed. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2022); see also Davis v. State,

substantial rights of the appellant-defendant. F.S.A. § 924.33. For these reasons we are satisfied that the ends

substantial rights of’ [the defendant]”) (quoting § 924.33, Fla. Stat.)); Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392

affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2021). 2

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1991).

(1908); Vol. 16, Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, 1331; Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1979).

v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1981).

814 (1987); § 90.803(18)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1989).

of the record in light of the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977). Based thereon, we

Mankowski v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597; Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A. Affirmed. WALDEN, REED and

Ct. 824, 827-28, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 709-11 (1967); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1983). As to the second point, the

v. State, 219 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1981).

harmless error review, as required by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2020), but we decline

reversal in light of the harmless error rule, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Disregarding the

that the error, if any, is harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33 (1971). Affirmed. McNULTY, C. J., BOARDMAN, J

rights of the appellant. Therefore, we affirm. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981); Olsen v. State, 338

the law, constitute harmful error. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33, F.S.A.; Fla.Stat. 59.041, F.S.A.; Cornelius v

the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2021). Boston, 2021 WL 4613829,

reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. See Section 924.33, F.S., F.S.A.; Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491

or not the error was prejudicial. See Fla.Stat, § 924.33, F.S.A. The record reveals that the defense of

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1995). DAUKSCH, PETERSON and THOMPSON

with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2017), which was thoroughly

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2015); Larkins v. State, 655 So.2d 95 (Fla.1995) (holding

courts of this State are specifically enjoined by § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. that “[n]o judgment shall be

harmless, and as such not basis for reversal here. § 924.33 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. See Williams v. State, Fla

Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla.1973); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991). Affirmed. BARKDULL

to ignore and violate the mandate found in Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A., it being: “When judgment

the substantial rights of the appellant. F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A. Affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL

that no prejudicial error is shown. See Fla.St. § 924.33 and Brantley v. State, Fla. 1973, 279 So.2d 290

S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987). The defendant’s confession

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33 (1969), F.S.A. LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33 (1969). LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ.,

assault and battery, the error was harmless, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes. The other point on appeal

therefore, we hold it was harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A. For the reasons stated, the judgment and

therefore under authority of Florida Statutes § 924.33, F.S.A., and the cases cited supra, the sentences

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1995); Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 323 (Fla.1991); State v

PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Fla.Stat. § 924.33; and cf. DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d

cross-examination, it was harmless. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33, and Corbin v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So.2d

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1987).'

Thomas v. State, 183 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

Hargrett v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So.2d 298; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

substantial rights of the appellant” (which section 924.33 directs “shall not be presumed”) and “has resulted

Dowling v. State, 210 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981). Affirmed.

As I pointed out in the Boatwright opinion, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), exists as this state’s

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

cumulative and clearly unnecessary to the judgment. Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes; Ross v. State, 202 So.2d

State, 210 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); and § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1977). Affirmed.

State, 300 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991). Affirmed.

v. State, 189 So.2d 656 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975); and Fla.R.Crim.P

demonstrate “a preliminary basis for reversal”); cf. § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (precluding any presumption of reversible

overwhelming as to guilt such would be harmless. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Man-kowski v. State, Fla.1955

Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

objection out of the hearing of the jury.” . Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A.: “No judgment shall be reversed

made any difference in the ultimate outcome. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003); *1225Goodwin v. State, 751

undertake the required harmless error analysis, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991), because a conclusion

89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: “924.33 When judgment not

Jr. v. State, 342 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981).

rather than the commission of the act. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., provides as follows: “No judgment shall

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

Associate Judge, concur. . See Fla.Stat. § 54.23 and § 924.33, F.S.A. (harmless error statutes).

affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); see Perri v. State, 441 So

State, 427 So.2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1985). Therefore, for the

DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655; F.S., § 924.33 F.S.A. See also Henry v. State, this court’s case

Beach v. Cobbett, 82 So.2d 870, 871-72 (Fla.1955); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1983). Affirmed.

two. If error was committed it was harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, 1951, F.S.A.; Lowman v.

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, 739 (Fla. 2013); see § 924.33, Fla. Stat. “The harmless error test . . . places

no. 81-1904, opinion filed, May 11, 1982); Section 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979).

section shall be liberally construed.” And Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S. A., further provides:

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); Fields v. State, 379 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla. 3d

CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.803(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); see Lea Industries, Inc. v

699; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Brown v. State, Fla.1968,

harmful error incident thereto was not shown. See Section 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., which provides: “No judgment

v. State, 218 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979). In order to reverse a trial

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

(1967); State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133 (Fla.1988); and § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1991). We therefore affirm both the

adversely affect Castillo’s substantial rights. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d

failure to do so was simply harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983).3 In this ease, indeed

error asserted, if any, is harmless error under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. *920Accordingly,

550; Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112; § 924.33 Fla. Stat., F.S.A.; 32 Fla.Jur.Trial, §§ 151,

error, we find it to have been harmless error. See § 924.33, Florida Statutes. We find the evidence was sufficient

absence as harmless error within the meaning of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Casso v. State

we hold it to be harmless error under F.S. Section 924.-33, F.S.A. in view of the fact that the jury declined

Scarpati v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 335; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Therefore, for the reasons

Williams v. State, Fla.App., 243 So.2d 215; F.S.A. Section 924.33; Salter v. State, 152 Fla. 284, 10 So.2d 809

v. State-wright, 300 So.2d 674 (Fla.1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977).

error must be fundamental and prejudicial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows:

State, 386 So.2d 825, 827-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ziegler v. State, 385 So.2d

effect of the improperly elicited testimony. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983); Palmes v. State,

rather than on the possible cause of the fall. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The plaintiffs having

Dickenson v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So.2d 561; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We have examined the second

second degree murder was ample if not overwhelming. § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950

...However, any prejudice which might have inured to the defendant's detriment was overcome by his testimony and admission to having had sexual relations with the minor victim. Consequently, followed by the defendant's testimony, the victim's latter statement was merely cumulative and constituted harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

...e light of the record as a whole, any error in this respect was, indeed, no more than harmless. State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981); § 924.33, Fla....

rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 861; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

872; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 902; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

the jury, we hold this was harmless error. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The final judgment herein appealed

v. State, 130 Fla. 53, 177 So. 321 (1937); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977). Therefore, the order

118; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 So. 334; F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and

420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes (1984). Affirmed. LETTS,

1970); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

errors suggested by appellants are harmless. F.S. 924.33 (1973). Affirmed. OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and

event, if there was any error it was harmless. Section 924.33, F.S., 1973; McDonnell v. State, Fla.App.1974

DeLaine v. State, 262 So.2d 655 (Fla.1972) and Fla.Stat. 924.33 (1973). Affirmed. OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J.

require a new trial”) (emphasis supplied); see also § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1997).2 Additionally, although there

824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 and Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. Affirmed. WALDEN, McCAIN

Rodriguez v. State, 462 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1984).

Section 90.613, Florida Statutes *1228(1989); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1989); Florida Rules of

Lebowitz v. State, Fla.App.1975, 313 So.2d 473; § 924.33, Fla.Stat.

...alysis.'" Pollard, 780 So.2d at 1017 (quoting Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1988)). Although the State has not argued that the failure to give the Miranda warnings was harmless, we have conducted an independent review for harmlessness. See § 924.33, Fla....

error if any in those respects was harmless. By § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. it is provided that a judgment

procedure constituted harmless error. F.S.A. § 924.-33. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332. Affirmed

DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986); see § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“No judgment shall be reversed

Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla.1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983).

conclude that the error was harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S. A.; Cf., Edwards v. State, Fla.App.1974

Mahone v. State, 222 So.2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1983); cf. Thornes v. State, 485 So

deprived defendant of a fair trial. Affirmed. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1993). Pursuant to section 924.33, and case law, the burden

Accordingly, I would affirm on this basis as well. F.S. § 924.33; e. g., Henry v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 290 So

Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1977); See Zamora v. State, 361 So

materially contribute to the convictions herein. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1983). The sentence imposed in this

...Before WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. The only arguable error presented on this appeal from a second degree murder conviction, which concerns the allegedly improper admission of "expert" testimony by a crime scene investigator, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See § 924.33, Fla....

clear that the harmless error rule set forth in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979), cannot be resorted

States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 64; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat.

as error we find not to be meritorious under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987). Wherefore the conviction

Mullin, 286 *618So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); § 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987).

McNeal v. State, 303 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); § 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987); Greer v. Miller, 483

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1991).

v. State, 211 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

Hayward v. State, 590 So.2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1989). Affirmed as modified.

automatically require reversal on appeal. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33, F.S.A. Here, there was evidence before the jury

in the record and thus harmless error. See Fla.Stat. 924.33 F.S.A., Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So

would apply the harmless error statute, F.S. Section 924.33, F.S.1970, and affirm the judgment and sentence

Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1979). Affirmed.

conviction and judgment below are affirmed. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d

in the absence of demonstrated harmful error. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1989). Certainly, allowing the jurors

entitlement to relief, which is his burden under section 924.33, Florida Statutes. I would affirm the trial

Florida, 1939. Section 309 of this Act, now F.S.A. § 924.33, provides: “No judgment shall be reversed unless

” and harm, notably, is not to be “presumed.” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and our

critical appellate function."). Additionally, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2024), enacted in 1939,

41 Ill.2d 494, 244 N.E.2d 145 (1969); F.S. Section 924.33, F.S.A. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and

and, accordingly, presents no reversible error. § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1981). Affirmed in part; reversed

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); compare: O’Berry v. State, 348 So

“with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes,” and “thoroughly examined”

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, section 924.33 and section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

406, 100 So. 264 (1924) (syllabus by court, 6); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1983); see generally 24 Fla.Jur.2d

parole. . . . ’ ” .Fla., 305 So.2d 1. . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: “No judgment shall be reversed

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999).

602; Henry v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So.2d 73; § 924.33, Fla.Stat. We hold that permitting the investigating

misapplication of the law by the trial court. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Fouts v. State,

The error being harmless, we affirm. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33 (1969). PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

per se within the scope of Rule 3.410. . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes. . State v. Murray, 443

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

an earlier stage of the proceedings below. Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979). *8632. The apparent claim

Mathews v. State, Fla.App.1969,221 So.2d 431; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, we find that the trial

interrogatory verdict. Thus affirmance is required by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983). As we said in Walsh