harmless error in Pennsylvania

2026“The harmless error doctrine, as -9- J-S42039-25 adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is - 10 - J-S07036-26 entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).

2025Our inquiry, however, does not end, as we must consider whether, or not, the trial court’s error in denying Appellant’s motion in limine constituted harmless error.11 It is well-established that “an error can be harmless only if [the Commonwealth establishes and] the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless.” Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 162 (Pa. 1978). “[A]n error cannot be held harmless unless the appellate court determines that the error could not have contributed to ____________________________________________ 11 We do not raise the harmless

2023In that vein, the Court explained: In Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978), this Court adopted a harmless error standard equally applicable to errors involving state law as those involving federal constitutional error.

2021Harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. [J-70-2020] - 43 Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 521 (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344, 350 (Pa. 1998)).

2021Harmless error exists where, among other things, “the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis. . . .” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344, 350 (Pa. 1998)).

2018Harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. -9- J-S43012-18 Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45 , 52–53, 811 A.2d 556, 561 (2002).

2018Harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. -9- J-S43012-18 Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45 , 52–53, 811 A.2d 556, 561 (2002).

2021“The doctrine of harmless error is a technique of appellate review designed to advance judicial economy by obviating the necessity for a retrial where the appellate court is convinced that a trial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163, 182 (Pa 2012).

2020The harmless error doctrine is “designed to advance judicial economy by obviating the necessity for a retrial[.]” See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163, 182 (Pa. 2012).

2020It is well established that in order to obtain PCRA relief, the petitioner must establish that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness “so undermined the truth- determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could ____________________________________________ have been different absent counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness.” (citation omitted)). 15See generally Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564, 573 (Pa. 2005) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims raise “a distinct legal ground for purposes of state PCRA review” and the claim should be reviewed “under the three

2014See Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 100 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994); see also Commonwealth v. Strong, 575 Pa. 433, 437 , 836 A.2d 884, 887 (2003) (applying a harmless error analysis to a violation of a rule of criminal procedure and collecting cases); Commonwealth v. Morris, 522 Pa. 533, 541 , 564 A.2d 1226, 1230 (1989) (holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless). 1 Accordingly, I do not agree with the proposition of the majority and responsive opinions that Appellant is not entitled to relief because he has failed to establish prejudice.

2020Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475, 493 (Pa. 2018); see also Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d 509, 519 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc) (holding that not all errors at trial entitle an appellant to a new trial, and the harmless error doctrine reflects the reality that an accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial).

2019Under the harmless error doctrine, “an error can be harmless only if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless.” Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475, 493 (Pa. 2018) -2- J-A26002-18 (quotations and citations omitted).

2023Here, the issue is an evidentiary ruling, and thus a harmless error analysis is appropriate. - 12 - J-S20001-23 e.g., Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764, 796 (Pa. 2017) (holding that the harmless error analysis in a criminal case requires the following: (1) The error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial

2022Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764, 796 (Pa. 2017) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Hamlett, 234 A.3d 486 , 492 (Pa. 2020) (stating - 13 - J-A01012-22 that “sua sponte invocation of the harmless error doctrine is not inappropriate as it does nothing more than affirm a valid judgment of sentence on an alternative basis” (citation omitted)).

2022“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 640 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. 1994).

2020“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671 (Pa. 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 640 A.2d 896, 898 (Pa. 1994) (citation omitted).

2023Harmless error exists where: “(1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant - 13 - J-S11027-23 by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Id. (quoting Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 521 ).

2021Our Supreme Court has held: Harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. -7- J-S47042-20 Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

2025“The doctrine of harmless error is a technique of appellate review designed to advance judicial economy by obviating the necessity for a retrial where the appellate court is convinced that a trial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Thornton, 494 Pa. 260, 266 , 431 A.2d 248, 251 (1981).

2025“The doctrine of harmless error is a technique of appellate review designed to advance judicial economy by obviating the necessity for a retrial where the appellate court is convinced that a trial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Thornton, 494 Pa. 260, 266 , 431 A.2d 248, 251 (1981).

2025“Harmless error exists if the record demonstrates either . . . the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis[.]” Id. at 890 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671 (Pa. 2014)) (alteration in Grove).

2024Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116, 1122 (Pa. 2000) (emphasis added); see also id. (stating all rulings on motions for a new trial are subject to a harmless error analysis, in which relief is precluded if no prejudice is established).

2020If the defendant is successful in discharging that obligation, the burden of proof shifts to the State.”). [J-93-2019] [MO: Saylor, C.J.] - 2 Court’s more recent suggestion that an appellate court’s sua sponte invocation of the harmless error doctrine is a permissible exercise of the court’s prerogative to apply the right-for-any-reason doctrine—a notion floated in an undeveloped footnote in Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 , 215 n.11 (Pa. 2003), and applied by this Court on a handful of occasions since.

2016In other words, an error cannot be harmless if ____________________________________________ 7 Appellant did not call any witnesses or offer any evidence in his defense. 8 “The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 719 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (citation omitted). -8- J-S26022-16 there is a reasonable possibility the error might have contributed to the conviction.” Cooley, A.3d at 380 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202, 21

2022Prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated under a harmless error standard." Id. "[T]he propriety of the prosecution's remarks in closing argument must be evaluated in light of defense counsel's comments in closing." See Commonwealth v. Ragland, 991 A.2d 336, 341 (Pa. Super. 2010) ( citations omitted here).

2022Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 774 (Pa. Super. 2015) quoting Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009), A harmless error standard evaluates “whether a defendant received a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Judy, at 1019-1020.

2023Further, our review of the concluding instructions cited above reveals phraseology in generalities that is not specifically tailored to address the error at issue. 20 As a final matter, the second conjunctive part of prong three of the harmless error test provides that “the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Hairston, 84 A.3d at 672 (emphasis added) (quoting Hawkins, 701 A.2d at 507 ).

2018Regardless, any error was harmless, Harmless error exists with respect to erroneously admitted evidence where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de min/mis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence waa merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially sfmilar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and unconfradlcted evidence of guilt was so oveiwhetming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so lnslgnlflcant'by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict, Commonwealth v. Hawl</ns, 701

2021See Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 719 (Pa.Super. 2011) (“Harmless error exists when, inter alia, the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence.”).

2020The court reasoned: The harmless error doctrine “reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 719 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. West, 834 A.2d 625, 634 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2017“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Drummond, 775 A.2d 849, 853 (Pa.Super. 2001).

2016“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Drummond, 775 A.2d 849, 853 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 756 , 790 A.2d 1013 (2001).

2021“Prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated under a harmless error standard.” Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1020 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 250 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2018Prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated under a harmless error standard. -8- J-S23034-18 Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 250 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted).

2021See Commonwealth v. Hamlett, 234 A.3d 486 , 492 (Pa. 2020) (stating that “sua sponte invocation of the harmless error doctrine is not inappropriate as it does nothing more than affirm a valid judgment of sentence on an alternative basis”); see also Commonwealth v. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062, 1073 (Pa. 2007) (noting that although the Commonwealth did not include a harmless error analysis in its brief, “an appellate court may affirm a valid judgment based on any reason appearing as of record, regardless of whether it is raised by the appellee”). - 26 - J-A27025-20 Here, the trial court concluded that

2020See Commonwealth v. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062 (Pa. 2007) (noting that although the Commonwealth did not include a harmless error analysis in its brief, “an appellate court may affirm a valid judgment based on any reason appearing as of record, regardless of whether it is raised by the appellee”).

2021Given that the complained-of evidence did not contribute to this Court’s harmless error analysis on direct appeal, Perez has failed to prove how the result of the proceeding could have been different.3 Therefore, Perez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails.4 See Spotz, supra. Consequently, the ____________________________________________ 3 Perez argues the Commonwealth’s only reason to introduce the “ugly gun” was to “improperly prejudice the jury and to show that Perez had a propensity for criminal behavior in violation of [Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)]. . . .

2019The harmless error standard, as 164 set forth by this Court in Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d [155], [(Pa. 1978)] (citations omitted), states that "[w]henever there is a `reasonable possibility' that an error 'might have contributed to the conviction,' the error is not harmless." This standard, which places the burden on the Commonwealth to show that the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, is a lesser standard than the Pierce prejudice standard...." Spot; 84 A.3d at 315 (emphasis added).

2024“The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.” Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 711 (Pa.Super. 2004).

2018Harmless error exists when the Commonwealth shows one of the following: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. -4- J-A09006-18 Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d 509, 519 (Pa.Super. 2017)

2024See In the Interest of J.M.G., supra (applying Chapman to determine if violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege in juvenile civil commitment hearings was subject to a harmless error analysis); In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (holding that trial court’s error in failing to appoint counsel for the children in an involuntary termination of parental rights case was a structural error as defined in Fulminante).

2023The failure to appoint legal counsel constitutes a structural error which is not subject to a harmless-error analysis. -3- J-A27002-22 Id. “[T]he recognized purpose of the statute is to ensure that the needs and welfare of the children involved are actively advanced.” In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 180 (Pa. 2017).

2026The “[c]onsideration of all new trial claims is grounded firmly in the harmless error doctrine[.]” Id. (citation omitted).

2025To determine whether prejudice occurred, the “[c]onsideration of all new trial claims is grounded firmly in the harmless error doctrine[.]” Knowles v. Levan, 15 A.3d 504, 507 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

2017“Harmless error exists if the state proves either: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Simmons, 541 Pa. 211 , 662 A.2d 621, 633 (1995) The second ground for har

2017“Harmless error exists if the state proves either: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621, 633 (Pa. 1995) The second ground for harmless erro

2026“Harmless error exists where the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted evidence could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 209 A.3d 444, 450 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2025“Harmless error exists where the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted evidence could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 209 A.3d 444, 450 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).