Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1978–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hardygreen2 sentences2025"Confrontation [C]lause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis" ( People v Robinson , 216 AD3d 1252 , 1255-1256 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and "[c]onstitutional error requires reversal unless the error's impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . based on a review of the entire record" ( People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "[H]owever overwhelming may be the quantum and nature of other proof, the error is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the er 2025"Confrontation [C]lause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis" ( People v Robinson , 216 AD3d 1252 , 1255-1256 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and "[c]onstitutional error requires reversal unless the error's impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . based on a review of the entire record" ( People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "[H]owever overwhelming may be the quantum and nature of other proof, the error is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the er | 11 | 11 |
People v. Eastmangreen2 sentences2017“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; see People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777, 779 [2005]; People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 276 [1995]; People v Crimmins, 36 *559 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]). 2015“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; see People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777, 779 [2005]; People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 276 [1995]). | 9 | 10 |
People v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2015Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis ( People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]), and a review of the entire record demonstrates that the that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction ( People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). 2015Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]), and a review of the entire record demonstrates that the that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). | 8 | 11 |
Schneble v. Floridagreen2 sentences2017“Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d at 198, quoting People v Eastman, 85 NY2d at 276 ; see Schneble v Florida, 405 US 427, 430 [1972]). 2015“Constitutional error requires reversal unless the error’s impact was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d at 198, *914 quoting People v Eastman, 85 NY2d at 276 ; see Schneble v Florida, 405 US 427, 430 [1972]). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Douglasgreen2 sentences2017“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; see People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777, 779 [2005]; People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 276 [1995]; People v Crimmins, 36 *559 NY2d 230, 240-241 [1975]). 2015“Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis” (People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005]; see People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777, 779 [2005]; People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 276 [1995]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Sepulvedagreen2 sentences2025"Confrontation [C]lause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis" ( People v Robinson , 216 AD3d 1252 , 1255-1256 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and "[c]onstitutional error requires reversal unless the error's impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . based on a review of the entire record" ( People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "[H]owever overwhelming may be the quantum and nature of other proof, the error is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the er 2025"Confrontation [C]lause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis" ( People v Robinson , 216 AD3d 1252 , 1255-1256 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and "[c]onstitutional error requires reversal unless the error's impact was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt . . . based on a review of the entire record" ( People v Hardy , 4 NY3d 192, 198 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "[H]owever overwhelming may be the quantum and nature of other proof, the error is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the er | 2 | 2 |
People v. Clydegreen2 sentences2023The constitutional harmless error standard applies here, requiring a showing that the evidence was overwhelming and that there is no -8- -9- No. 75 reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction (People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 153-154 [2011]). 2012Upon a constitutional harmless error analysis, there has been insufficient showing that the defendant was not prejudiced and that the shackling error did not affect the verdict (see People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 153-154 [2011] [considering “the quantum and nature of the evidence against defendant if the error is excised” and the error’s effect on the factfinder in determining whether an error is harmless]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2014The People correctly concede that the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report directly linking the defendant to a firearm recovered from a codefendant’s residence (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 338 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 146 [2008]; People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901-902 [2012]; People v Morrison, 90 AD3d 1554, 1556-1557 [2011]). *833 “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analy | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2014The People correctly concede that the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report directly linking the defendant to a firearm recovered from a codefendant’s residence (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 338 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 146 [2008]; People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901-902 [2012]; People v Morrison, 90 AD3d 1554, 1556-1557 [2011]). *833 “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analy | 1 | 1 |
People v. Olivergreen1 sentence2014The People correctly concede that the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report directly linking the defendant to a firearm recovered from a codefendant’s residence (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 338 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 146 [2008]; People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901-902 [2012]; People v Morrison, 90 AD3d 1554, 1556-1557 [2011]). *833 “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analy | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rawlinsgreen1 sentence2014The People correctly concede that the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report directly linking the defendant to a firearm recovered from a codefendant’s residence (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 338 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 146 [2008]; People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901-902 [2012]; People v Morrison, 90 AD3d 1554, 1556-1557 [2011]). *833 “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analy | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen1 sentence2007(People v Hardy, supra, 4 NY3d at 198; People v Eastman, supra, 85 NY2d at 276 ; People v Kimes, 37 AD3d 1, 29 [1st Dept 2006], citing Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681-683 [1986].) Error requires reversal unless the impact of the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v Hardy, supra, 4 NY3d at 198; People v Eastman, supra, 85 NY2d at 276 .) The court must review the entire record, evaluating the strength of the case without the erroneously admitted evidence and the causal effect that the error may have had on the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kimesgreen1 sentence2007(People v Hardy, supra, 4 NY3d at 198; People v Eastman, supra, 85 NY2d at 276 ; People v Kimes, 37 AD3d 1, 29 [1st Dept 2006], citing Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 681-683 [1986].) Error requires reversal unless the impact of the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v Hardy, supra, 4 NY3d at 198; People v Eastman, supra, 85 NY2d at 276 .) The court must review the entire record, evaluating the strength of the case without the erroneously admitted evidence and the causal effect that the error may have had on the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2005“Errors resulting in a violation of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation are subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis.” (People v Douglas, 4 NY3d 777 [2005].) “Such errors are considered harmless when, in the light of the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the . . . verdict.” ( 4 NY3d at 779 ; see also, People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302 [2003].) Here, the evidence established, beyond peradventure, that the defendant was engaged in offering goods for sale without the required license. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2003People v Smith, 97 NY2d 324, 330 [2002]). 2003People v Smith, 97 NY2d 324, 330 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences1981Notwithstanding the foregoing, any determination of the merits of the instant motion must necessarily rest on the application of the constitutional harmless error standard set forth in Chapman v California ( 386 US 18 , supra). 1981Whenever the defendant is deprived of a “substantial right” (Chapman v California, supra), regardless of the overwhelming quality of the other proof, the error may not be considered harmless if “there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (Fahy v Connecticut, 375 US 85, 86-87 ; emphasis added; see, also, Chapman v California, supra; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237, 240-241 .) An analysis of the case at bar must therefore consider the totality of the evidence in the case and the effect, if any, that the error had on the jury’s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harrington v. California
red
2 sentences1987"It is precisely this fundamental nature of the right that renders harmless error analysis inapplicable. 'The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.’ (Glosser v United States, 315 US 60, 76 .) Notions of prejudicial impact, overwhelming evidence of guilt and the like, which are the underpinnings of the constitutional harmless error doctrine, are significant in the context of trial errors, e.g., the admission of improperly seized evidence (People v Almestica, 4 1981The constitutional harmless error rule requires that there exist overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, plus the absence of any reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was influenced towards conviction by introduction of the tainted material (Harrington v California, 395 US 250 ; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ). | 3 | 1979–1987 |
People v. Schaeffer
green
2 sentences2013As the Court of Appeals has recognized with respect to this component, “confessions of crime, supremely self-condemnatory acts, are almost sure to weigh most heavily with fact finders” (People v Schaeffer, 56 NY2d at 455 ). 2013As the Court of Appeals has recognized with respect to this component, “confessions of crime, supremely self-condemnatory acts, are almost sure to weigh most heavily with fact finders” (People v Schaeffer, 56 NY2d at 455 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Glasser v. United States
green
2 sentences1987"It is precisely this fundamental nature of the right that renders harmless error analysis inapplicable. 'The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.’ (Glosser v United States, 315 US 60, 76 .) Notions of prejudicial impact, overwhelming evidence of guilt and the like, which are the underpinnings of the constitutional harmless error doctrine, are significant in the context of trial errors, e.g., the admission of improperly seized evidence (People v Almestica, 4 1979"The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.” (Glasser v United States, 315 US 60, 76 .) Notions of prejudicial impact, overwhelming evidence of guilt and the like, which are the underpinnings of the constitutional harmless error doctrine, are significant in the context of trial errors, e.g., the admission of improperly seized evidence (People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222 , supra) or the improper admission of the confession of a codefendant who did not take the sta | 2 | 1979–1987 |
People v. Almestica
green
2 sentences1987"It is precisely this fundamental nature of the right that renders harmless error analysis inapplicable. 'The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.’ (Glosser v United States, 315 US 60, 76 .) Notions of prejudicial impact, overwhelming evidence of guilt and the like, which are the underpinnings of the constitutional harmless error doctrine, are significant in the context of trial errors, e.g., the admission of improperly seized evidence (People v Almestica, 4 1979"The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.” (Glasser v United States, 315 US 60, 76 .) Notions of prejudicial impact, overwhelming evidence of guilt and the like, which are the underpinnings of the constitutional harmless error doctrine, are significant in the context of trial errors, e.g., the admission of improperly seized evidence (People v Almestica, 42 NY2d 222 , supra) or the improper admission of the confession of a codefendant who did not take the sta | 2 | 1979–1987 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2014The People correctly concede that the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause (see US Const, 6th Amend) were violated when the Supreme Court admitted a nontestifying DNA analyst’s report directly linking the defendant to a firearm recovered from a codefendant’s residence (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]; People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332, 338 [2009]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 146 [2008]; People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901-902 [2012]; People v Morrison, 90 AD3d 1554, 1556-1557 [2011]). *833 “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to a constitutional harmless error analy | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fahy v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence1981Whenever the defendant is deprived of a “substantial right” (Chapman v California, supra), regardless of the overwhelming quality of the other proof, the error may not be considered harmless if “there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (Fahy v Connecticut, 375 US 85, 86-87 ; emphasis added; see, also, Chapman v California, supra; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237, 240-241 .) An analysis of the case at bar must therefore consider the totality of the evidence in the case and the effect, if any, that the error had on the jury’s | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.