38 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2024 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2023Ed. 2d at 710-11 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 , 723 S.E.2d at 331 . “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 17 L. 2023Ed. 2d at 710-11 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 , 723 S.E.2d at 331 . “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 17 L. | 9 | 20 |
Davis v. Ayalagreen2 sentences2021Analysis ¶8 “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 , STATE V. 2021Analysis ¶8 “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 , STATE V. | 6 | 6 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2023Ed. 2d at 710-11 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 , 723 S.E.2d at 331 . “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 17 L. 2023Ed. 2d at 710-11 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 , 723 S.E.2d at 331 . “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 17 L. | 5 | 12 |
Davis v. Ayalagreen2 sentences2023Ed. 2d at 708 ; see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267 , 192 L. 2023Ed. 2d at 708 ; see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267 , 192 L. | 4 | 4 |
Oyler v. Bolesgreen2 sentences2001Therefore, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004 does not apply to the case sub judice and has no bearing on our analysis of this issue. *261 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation." Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 (1962). "[T]here [must] be a showing that the selection was deliberately based upon `an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.'" State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 103 , 257 S.E.2d 551, 562 (1979) (quotin 2001Therefore, N.C.G.S. § 15A-2004 does not apply to the case sub judice and has no bearing on our analysis of this issue. *261 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation." Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446, 453 (1962). "[T]here [must] be a showing that the selection was deliberately based upon `an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.'" State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 103 , 257 S.E.2d 551, 562 (1979) (quotin | 2 | 3 |
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen2 sentences2021SCOTT 2021-NCSC-41 Opinion of the Court 267 (2015); N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (2019).1 The burden falls “upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 (1993); Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 . ¶9 In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the motion to suppress should have been sustained. 2021SCOTT 2021-NCSC-41 Opinion of the Court 267 (2015); N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (2019).1 The burden falls “upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 (1993); Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 ; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513 . ¶9 In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the motion to suppress should have been sustained. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wigginsgreen2 sentences2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for whether “there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). 2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for whether “there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Riccardigreen2 sentences2005See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 875 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646 , 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all cases would warrant a new sentencing hearing because any error might be harmless"), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Couma 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 2 | 2 |
Connecticut v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012It should be emphasized that federal structural error and state error per se have developed independently, as “whether a federal constitutional error can be harmless is a federal question,” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73 , 81 n.9, 103 S. Ct. 969 , 974 n.9 (1983), while “a state court is entirely free to read its own State’s constitution more broadly than [the United States Supreme Court] reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by [the United States Supreme Court] in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee,” City of Mesquit 2012It should be emphasized that federal structural error and state error per se have developed independently, as “whether a federal constitutional error can be harmless is a federal question,” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73 , 81 n.9, 103 S. Ct. 969 , 974 n.9 (1983), while “a state court is entirely free to read its own State’s constitution more broadly than [the United States Supreme Court] reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by [the United States Supreme Court] in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee,” City of Mesquit | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Coumaris, Georgegreen2 sentences2005See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 875 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646 , 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all cases would warrant a new sentencing hearing because any error might be harmless"), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Couma 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Alfred Arnold Amelinegreen2 sentences2005See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 875 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646 , 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all cases would warrant a new sentencing hearing because any error might be harmless"), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Couma 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 2 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2005Cf. In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 548 , 272 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1981) ("Under exceptional circumstances this [C]ourt will exercise power under [Article IV, Section 12, Clause 1 of the North Carolina Constitution] in order to consider questions which are not presented according to our rules of procedure; and this [C]ourt will not hesitate to exercise its general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice.") (citations omitted); State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 26 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) ("This Court will not hesitate to exercise its rarely used gen 2005Cf. In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 548 , 272 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1981) ("Under exceptional circumstances this [C]ourt will exercise power under [Article IV, Section 12, Clause 1 of the North Carolina Constitution] in order to consider questions which are not presented according to our rules of procedure; and this [C]ourt will not hesitate to exercise its general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice.") (citations omitted); State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 26 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) ("This Court will not hesitate to exercise its rarely used gen | 1 | 2 |
In Re Brownleegreen2 sentences2005Cf. In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 548 , 272 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1981) ("Under exceptional circumstances this [C]ourt will exercise power under [Article IV, Section 12, Clause 1 of the North Carolina Constitution] in order to consider questions which are not presented according to our rules of procedure; and this [C]ourt will not hesitate to exercise its general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice.") (citations omitted); State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 26 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) ("This Court will not hesitate to exercise its rarely used gen 2005Cf. In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 548 , 272 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1981) ("Under exceptional circumstances this [C]ourt will exercise power under [Article IV, Section 12, Clause 1 of the North Carolina Constitution] in order to consider questions which are not presented according to our rules of procedure; and this [C]ourt will not hesitate to exercise its general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice.") (citations omitted); State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19, 26 , 215 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1975) ("This Court will not hesitate to exercise its rarely used gen | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bensongreen2 sentences1997Id. 1995Cf. State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 325-26 , 372 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1988) (failure to submit nonstatutory mitigating circumstance "raises federal constitutional issues"). | 1 | 2 |
Fahy v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences1977“We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy Case [Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1963)] when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the Court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” This doctrine of harmless error is likewise firmly established in the law of this State. 1977“We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy Case [Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1963)] when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the Court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” This doctrine of harmless error is likewise firmly established in the law of this State. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Heardgreen1 sentence2024Simply put, “[b]efore a court can find a Constitutional error to be harmless it must be able to declare a belief that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 49–50 (quoting State v. Heard, 285 N.C. 167, 172 (1974)).2 Assuming that the harmless error standard applies to the DWI sentencing statute, the error in Mr. King’s case was not harmless. | 1 | 1 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012In other words, an error under the United States Constitution will be held harmless if “the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1837 (1999). 2012In other words, an error under the United States Constitution will be held harmless if “the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827, 1837 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2012When violations of a defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution are alleged, harmless error review functions the same way in both federal and state courts: “[Bjefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 (1967); see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b); State v. Ward, 354 N.C. 231, 251 , 555 S.E.2d 251, 265 (2001) (citations omitted). 2012When violations of a defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution are alleged, harmless error review functions the same way in both federal and state courts: “[Bjefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 (1967); see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b); State v. Ward, 354 N.C. 231, 251 , 555 S.E.2d 251, 265 (2001) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.green2 sentences2012It should be emphasized that federal structural error and state error per se have developed independently, as “whether a federal constitutional error can be harmless is a federal question,” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73 , 81 n.9, 103 S. Ct. 969 , 974 n.9 (1983), while “a state court is entirely free to read its own State’s constitution more broadly than [the United States Supreme Court] reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by [the United States Supreme Court] in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee,” City of Mesquit 2012It should be emphasized that federal structural error and state error per se have developed independently, as “whether a federal constitutional error can be harmless is a federal question,” Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73 , 81 n.9, 103 S. Ct. 969 , 974 n.9 (1983), while “a state court is entirely free to read its own State’s constitution more broadly than [the United States Supreme Court] reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by [the United States Supreme Court] in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee,” City of Mesquit | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Amonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Padilla v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holden v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Tyshea Mincey, Also Known as Tyshea Ferrell, and Deshawn Ferrell, Also Known as Barry Shawngreen1 sentence2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Maurice C. Pittmangreen1 sentence2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Rod M. Sharpleygreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lowerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cherrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grace Baptist Church v. City of Oxfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Juan Paz
green
2 sentences2005See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 875 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646 , 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all cases would warrant a new sentencing hearing because any error might be harmless"), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Couma 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 2 | 2005–2005 |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. ALFRED ARNOLD AMELINE, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT
green
2 sentences2005See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 875 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646 , 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all cases would warrant a new sentencing hearing because any error might be harmless"), vacated and reh'g en banc granted, 401 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Couma 2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Blackwell
green
2 sentences2024Under harmless error review for a federal constitutional violation, this Court is tasked with determining if the evidence in the record “against the defendant was so ‘overwhelming’ and ‘uncontroverted’ that any rational fact-finder would have found the disputed aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.” Blackwell, 361 N.C. at 49 . 2024Simply put, “[b]efore a court can find a Constitutional error to be harmless it must be able to declare a belief that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 49–50 (quoting State v. Heard, 285 N.C. 167, 172 (1974)).2 Assuming that the harmless error standard applies to the DWI sentencing statute, the error in Mr. King’s case was not harmless. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2017In deciding what constituted harmless error ... the [United States Supreme] Court said: "The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." State v. Johnson , 29 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Indiana v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 178 , 171 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pittman v. United States
neutral
1 sentence2005See id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07, 92 L.Ed.2d at 471 (discussing the "strong presumption" that a federal constitutional error is subject to harmless-error analysis). [13] See United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 875 (10th Cir.2005) (concluding that Sixth Amendment Blakely/Booker error was harmless in light of "overwhelming" evidence supporting the sentencing judge's fact-finding); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (applying harmless-error doctrine to Blakely error); United States v. Ameline, 400 F.3d 646, 652 (9th Cir.) (noting that under Booker "not all c | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Dailey v. Bank of America green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Scercy
green
2 sentences2005Defendant was indicted and tried for second degree rape, which consists of the following elements: "the defendant (1) engage[d] in vaginal intercourse with the victim; (2) by force; and (3) against the victim's will." State v. Scercy, 159 N.C.App. 344 , 352, 583 S.E.2d 339 , 344 (2003); N.C. 2005Defendant was indicted and tried for second degree rape, which consists of the following elements: "the defendant (1) engage[d] in vaginal intercourse with the victim; (2) by force; and (3) against the victim's will." State v. Scercy, 159 N.C.App. 344 , 352, 583 S.E.2d 339 , 344 (2003); N.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Lawson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Green v. Summers green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Betancourt v. Texas green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Brown v. Schiff green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Harrington v. California red | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Hudson green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. McCotter green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Nudo v. Brantley green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Sullivan v. Illinois Department of Corrections green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Watson green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Brinson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Gregory v. Gaffney green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts" green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Shinall v. Worrell green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.