harmless error in Idaho

2026“Harmless error is error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed by the record.” State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 674 , 462 P.3d 1125, 1138 (2020) (citation modified).

2026“Harmless error is error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed by the record.” State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 674 , 462 P.3d 1125, 1138 (2020) (citation modified).

2025“When an alleged error is preserved by contemporaneous objection, as it was here, the harmless error test applies[.]” State v. Weigle, 165 Idaho 482, 489 , 447 P.3d 930, 937 (2019) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 221, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 973, 979 (2010), and State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 438 , 348 P.3d 1, 53 (2015)).

2025“When an alleged error is preserved by contemporaneous objection, as it was here, the harmless error test applies[.]” State v. Weigle, 165 Idaho 482, 489 , 447 P.3d 930, 937 (2019) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 221, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 973, 979 (2010), and State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 438 , 348 P.3d 1, 53 (2015)).

2025Harmless error is “error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.” State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661 , 674, 462 P.3d 1124 , 1138 (2020) (citing Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991)); see also State v. Johnson, 163 Idaho 412 , 421, 414 P.3d 234, 243 (2018).

2024“Harmless error is 8 ‘error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.’ ” Id. at 674, 462 P.3d at 1138 (quoting Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991)).

2022Therefore, it is reviewed under the harmless error standard. 9 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)) (italics original to Perry). “ ‘An erroneous instruction will not constitute reversible error unless the instructions as a whole misled the jury or prejudiced a party.’ ” State v. Mann, 162 Idaho 36, 43 , 394 P.3d 79, 86 (2017) (quoting State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 264 , 923 P.2d 966, 971 (1996)).

2020See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9–10 (1999) (citing Yates, 500 U.S. at 404); Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279–80 (same). 11 Court went on to hold that an erroneous reasonable-doubt jury instruction was the kind of structural error that demanded remand without application of the harmless error test.

2022While the State has recognized that the prejudice standard in Strickland differs from the harmless error standard, it urges this Court to follow the reasoning from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), and conclude that “[t]here is little, if any difference between . . . whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction and requiring the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. ” Id. at 24 .

2022While the State has recognized that the prejudice standard in Strickland differs from the harmless error standard, it urges this Court to follow the reasoning from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), and conclude that “[t]here is little, if any difference between . . . whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction and requiring the beneficiary of a constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. ” Id. at 24 .

2010Lovelace II, 140 Idaho at 78-79, 90 P.3d at 303-04.

2010Lovelace II, 140 Idaho at 78-79, 90 P.3d at 303-04.

2026State v. Hickman, 146 Idaho 178, 180 , 191 P.3d 1098, 1100 (2008).

2026State v. Hickman, 146 Idaho 178, 180 , 191 P.3d 1098, 1100 (2008).

2020In Almaraz, we articulated the harmless error test, and then stated, “[i]n other words, the error is harmless if the Court finds that the result would be the same without the error.” Almaraz, 154 Idaho at 598, 301 P.3d at 256 (citing Perry, 150 Idaho at 227–28, 245 P.3d at 979–80).

2020In Almaraz, we articulated the harmless error test, and then stated, “[i]n other words, the error is harmless if the Court finds that the result would be the same without the error.” Almaraz, 154 Idaho at 598, 301 P.3d at 256 (citing Perry, 150 Idaho at 227–28, 245 P.3d at 979–80).

2010State v. LaMere, 103 Idaho 839, 844 , 655 P.2d 46, 51 (1982); State v. Pecor, 132 Idaho 359, 368 , 972 P.2d 737, 746 (Ct.App.1998).

2010State v. LaMere, 103 Idaho 839, 844 , 655 P.2d 46, 51 (1982); State v. Pecor, 132 Idaho 359, 368 , 972 P.2d 737, 746 (Ct.App.1998).

2023In determining whether the error that forms the basis for a motion for a mistrial is reversible, we apply the harmless error test.2 State v. Smith, 170 Idaho 800, 810 , 516 P.3d 1071, 1081 (2022).

2023In determining whether the error that forms the basis for a motion for a mistrial is reversible, we apply the harmless error test.2 State v. Smith, 170 Idaho 800, 810 , 516 P.3d 1071, 1081 (2022).

2020See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 9–10 (1999) (citing Yates, 500 U.S. at 404 ); Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279–80 (same). 11 Court went on to hold that an erroneous reasonable-doubt jury instruction was the kind of structural error that demanded remand without application of the harmless error test.

2020See, e.g., Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9–10 (1999) (citing Yates, 500 U.S. at 404); Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279–80 (same). 11 Court went on to hold that an erroneous reasonable-doubt jury instruction was the kind of structural error that demanded remand without application of the harmless error test.

2014“The purpose of a harmless error rule is to block setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial.” State v. Garcia, 100 Idaho 108, 111 , 594 P.2d 146, 149 (1979) (internal quotations omitted).

2014“The purpose of a harmless error rule is to block setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial.” State v. Garcia, 100 Idaho 108, 111 , 594 P.2d 146, 149 (1979) (internal quotations omitted).

2025“When an alleged error is preserved by contemporaneous objection, as it was here, the harmless error test applies[.]” State v. Weigle, 165 Idaho 482, 489 , 447 P.3d 930, 937 (2019) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 221, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 973, 979 (2010), and State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 438 , 348 P.3d 1, 53 (2015)).

2025“When an alleged error is preserved by contemporaneous objection, as it was here, the harmless error test applies[.]” State v. Weigle, 165 Idaho 482, 489 , 447 P.3d 930, 937 (2019) (citing State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 221, 227 , 245 P.3d 961, 973, 979 (2010), and State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 438 , 348 P.3d 1, 53 (2015)).

2022Idaho Criminal Rule 52 provides that “any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” The Idaho Supreme Court has said that the I.C.R. 52 standard is equivalent to the ordinary harmless error analysis: “If a substantial right is not affected, an abuse of discretion may be deemed harmless.” State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 140 , 334 P.3d 806, 814 (2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2022Idaho Criminal Rule 52 provides that “any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” The Idaho Supreme Court has said that the I.C.R. 52 standard is equivalent to the ordinary harmless error analysis: “If a substantial right is not affected, an abuse of discretion may be deemed harmless.” State v. Parker, 157 Idaho 132, 140 , 334 P.3d 806, 814 (2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2020The harmless error test provides that “once the defendant shows that a constitutional violation occurred, the State has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the jury’s verdict.” State v. Adamcik, 152 Idaho 445, 472 , 272 P.3d 417, 444 (2012).

2020The harmless error test provides that “once the defendant shows that a constitutional violation occurred, the State has the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the jury’s verdict.” State v. Adamcik, 152 Idaho 445, 472 , 272 P.3d 417, 444 (2012).

2019No Idaho court has definitively answered the question of who bears the burden of proving whether the denial of a motion for mistrial was ‘harmless’ or, in other words, ‘had a continuing impact on the trial.’” The Idaho Supreme Court has, however, continued to use the well-established appellate standard for analyzing the denial of a motion for a mistrial (articulated in Urquhart, State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 571 , 165 P.3d 273, 285 (2007), and numerous other Idaho cases) while at the same time citing Perry for the proposition that the State has the burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable do

2019No Idaho court has definitively answered the question of who bears the burden of proving whether the denial of a motion for mistrial was ‘harmless’ or, in other words, ‘had a continuing impact on the trial.’” The Idaho Supreme Court has, however, continued to use the well-established appellate standard for analyzing the denial of a motion for a mistrial (articulated in Urquhart, State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 571 , 165 P.3d 273, 285 (2007), and numerous other Idaho cases) while at the same time citing Perry for the proposition that the State has the burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable do

2010State v. LaMere, 103 Idaho 839, 844 , 655 P.2d 46, 51 (1982); State v. Pecor, 132 Idaho 359, 368 , 972 P.2d 737, 746 (Ct.App.1998).

2010State v. LaMere, 103 Idaho 839, 844 , 655 P.2d 46, 51 (1982); State v. Pecor, 132 Idaho 359, 368 , 972 P.2d 737, 746 (Ct.App.1998).

2010As the court in Kotteakos explained: [In developing the doctrine of harmless error, t]he general object was simple, to substitute judgment for automatic application of rules; to preserve review as a cheek upon arbitrary action and essential unfairness in trials, but at the same time to make the process perform that function without giving men fairly convicted the multiplicity of loopholes which any highly rigid and minutely detailed scheme of errors, especially in relation to procedure, will engender and reflect in a printed record. 328 U.S. at 759-60 , 66 S.Ct. at 1245 , 90 L.Ed. at 1563-64 .

2010As the court in Kotteakos explained: [In developing the doctrine of harmless error, t]he general object was simple, to substitute judgment for automatic application of rules; to preserve review as a cheek upon arbitrary action and essential unfairness in trials, but at the same time to make the process perform that function without giving men fairly convicted the multiplicity of loopholes which any highly rigid and minutely detailed scheme of errors, especially in relation to procedure, will engender and reflect in a printed record. 328 U.S. at 759-60 , 66 S.Ct. at 1245 , 90 L.Ed. at 1563-64 .

2020See, e.g., Urquhart, 105 Idaho at 95 , 665 P.2d at 1105 .

2020See, e.g., Urquhart, 105 Idaho at 95 , 665 P.2d at 1105 .

2025Harmless error is “error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.” State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661 , 674, 462 P.3d 1124 , 1138 (2020) (citing Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991)); see also State v. Johnson, 163 Idaho 412 , 421, 414 P.3d 234, 243 (2018).

2025Harmless error is “error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question, as revealed in the record.” State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661 , 674, 462 P.3d 1124 , 1138 (2020) (citing Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 403 (1991)); see also State v. Johnson, 163 Idaho 412 , 421, 414 P.3d 234, 243 (2018).

2022See State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010); see also State v. Campbell, ___ Idaho at ___, 481 P.3d at 123 (“If there is an omission of an essential element in a jury instruction this Court employs the harmless error test.”).

2022See State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 224 , 245 P.3d 961, 976 (2010); see also State v. Campbell, ___ Idaho at ___, 481 P.3d at 123 (“If there is an omission of an essential element in a jury instruction this Court employs the harmless error test.”).

2018The burden is on the defendant to prove "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id. ; see also State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345 , 361-63, 313 P.3d 1 , 17-19 (2013) (applying the harmless error and fundamental error standards from Perry to capital cases).

2018The burden is on the defendant to prove "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id. ; see also State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345 , 361-63, 313 P.3d 1 , 17-19 (2013) (applying the harmless error and fundamental error standards from Perry to capital cases).

2016State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 222 , 245 P.3d 961, 974 (2010); State v. Folk, 157 Idaho 869, 879 , 341 P.3d 586, 596 (Ct. App. 2014).

2016State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 222 , 245 P.3d 961, 974 (2010); State v. Folk, 157 Idaho 869, 879 , 341 P.3d 586, 596 (Ct. App. 2014).

2018Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2018Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2010The Court held that the correct standard required appellate courts to ask “ Vhether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Id. at 23 , 87 S.Ct. at 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d at 710 (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171, 172-173 (1963)).

2010The Court held that the correct standard required appellate courts to ask “ Vhether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ ” Id. at 23 , 87 S.Ct. at 827 , 17 L.Ed.2d at 710 (quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171, 172-173 (1963)).