prejudicial effect error in Pennsylvania

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)).

2019All of this make the evidence presented at trial “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. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344, 350 (Pa. 1998); see Brooker, supra at 332 .

2024The “burden of establishing that an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the Commonwealth.” Commonwealth v. Rush, 605 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1992). “[A]n error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the - 10 - J-A19016-24 verdict.” Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 166 (Pa. 1978) (emphasis added).

2023The applicable standard in this case is whether “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.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475, 493 (Pa. 2018)). ____________________________________________ 7 In Boyer, this Court found such an error to be harmless where Boyer confessed to the crime.

2026See Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671-72 (Pa. 2014) (stating erroneous admission of evidence may be harmless error if error did not prejudice defendant or “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”).

2025In Rivera, the Supreme Court applied the harmless error standard from Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 143 , 84 A.3d 657, 671-72 (2014): Harmless error exists if ( 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 contr

2022This Court will find harmless error if the certified record establishes that 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 ____________________________________________ 3 We note that when evidence is admitted pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), “the party against whom i

2018See Commonwealth v Hutchinson, 811 A.2d 556, 561 (Pa. 2002) (harmless error exists where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minima; (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).

2025See Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475 (Pa. 2018) (error is harmless where “the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant that the error could not have contributed to the verdict”); see also Commonwealth v. Hamlett, 234 A.3d 486 , 492 (Pa. 2020) (appellate courts may raise harmless error sua sponte).

2024In Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475 (Pa. 2018), our Supreme Court summarized the three scenarios in which an error may be found to be harmless: (1) [T]he error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; 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.

2023It applies if, among other things, “the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that the prejudicial effect of the error by comparison could not have contributed to the verdict.” Id. at 1139–40.

2021“An error may be deemed harmless, inter alia, where 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.” See Commonwealth v. Young, 748 A.2d 166, 193 (1999).

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).

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

2019See Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764, 787 (Pa. 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 [J-85-2018] - 22 and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”) (citation omit

2026“An error may be deemed harmless, inter alia, where 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. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062, 1073 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

2025“An error may be deemed harmless, inter alia, where 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. Moore, 937 A.2d 1062, 1073 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

2023In the context of this case, then, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that “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.” Hairston, 84 A.3d at 671 -72 (quoting Hawkins, 701 A.2d at 507 ).

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 ).

2018It then set forth the following standard for finding harmless error: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimus; 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 ... 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-10-2018] - 12 Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586, 603 (Pa.

2018Id. at *9 (citing Pa.R.E. 803(6); 42 Pa.C.S. 6108(b)). lt then set forth the following standard for finding harmless error: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimus; 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 was so oven/vheiming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. [J-10-2018] - 12 ld. (quo

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

2017An error is considered harmless where: “(1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative or 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. Gause, 164 A.3d 532, 540 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 573 A.2

2020An error is harmless where: (I) 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." Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 711 (Pa. 2004).

2020Nonetheless, the record aptly demonstrates that the properly admitted and uncontroverted evidence of guilt, including Defendant's admission that he stalked and lay in wait to murder Scott, extensive video surveillance capturing Defendant doing so, and Defendant's prior vow to murder Scott, is evidence so overwhelming that any alleged prejudice by the claimed errors, individually and 43 An error is harmless where: "(I) 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 su

2023The basis for the objection was the fact that the question would violate the privilege against self- incrimination. 58 In a confounding ruling, the trial court stated that, while defense counsel was “correct,” the Commonwealth was “just asking if he did.” 59 The trial court appeared 55 See id. at 34 n.20 (noting that, for purposes of a harmless error analysis, a court must contemplate whether the prejudicial effect of the error was “insignificant by comparison” to the balance of the trial evidence) (citations omitted). 56 Molina, 104 A.3d at 455 (quoting Commonwealth v. Davis, 305 A.2d 715, 71

2023The basis for the objection was the fact that the question would violate the privilege against self- incrimination. 58 In a confounding ruling, the trial court stated that, while defense counsel was “correct,” the Commonwealth was “just asking if he did.” 59 The trial court appeared 55 See id. at 34 n.20 (noting that, for purposes of a harmless error analysis, a court must contemplate whether the prejudicial effect of the error was “insignificant by comparison” to the balance of the trial evidence) (citations omitted). 56 Molina, 104 A.3d at 455 (quoting Commonwealth v. Davis, 305 A.2d 715, 71

2025Murray, 248 A.3d at 576 (quoting Commonwealth v. Taylor, 209 A.3d 444, 450 (Pa. Super. 2019)).

2022Commonwealth v. Taylor, 209 A.3d 444, 450 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 524 Pa. 404 , 573 A.2d 536 , 538–39 (1990) (citation omitted)).

2010Kulzer, 979 A.2d at 1037 n. 3. [13] In Story, our Supreme Court stated: This Court has stated that an error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. [FN] Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 178-79 , 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973); accord, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 [ 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972)].

2010Kulzer, 979 A.2d at 1037 n. 3. [13] In Story, our Supreme Court stated: This Court has stated that an error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. [FN] Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 178-79 , 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973); accord, Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 [ 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972)].

2021An error is harmless when: (1) it does not prejudice the defendant or any prejudice was de minimus; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence is merely cumulative of other substantially similar 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 ____________________________________________ 6 Pa.R.E. 401. - 10 - J-S03005-21 could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d 509, 519 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2021The overwhelming evidence of record, as summarized above, demonstrated that Coleman acted with “conscious disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm.” Parker, supra. We conclude, therefore, that the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of Coleman’s 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.” Green, supra. Accordingly, Coleman is not entitled to relief on this claim.

2024More specifically, our Supreme Court has “found harmless error where: (1) the error did 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.” Id. (citation omitted).

2023Our courts have held that error is harmless when “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. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 143 (Pa. 2008).

2023See Commonwealth v. Holt, 273 A.3d 514 , 540 (Pa. 2022) (error may be deemed harmless where, inter alia, “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”); see also Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993 , 1005-06 (Pa. 1999) (applying harmless error doctrine in suppression context). - 32 - J-S10032-22 the information was admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

2023See Commonwealth v. Holt, 273 A.3d 514 , 540 (Pa. 2022) (error may be deemed harmless where, inter alia, “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”); see also Commonwealth v. Petroll, 738 A.2d 993, 1005-06 (Pa. 1999) (applying harmless error doctrine in suppression context). - 32 - J-S10032-22 the information was admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

2023Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671-72 (Pa. 2014) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Noel, 104 A.3d 1156, 1169 (Pa. 2014) (“If a trial error does not deprive the defendant of the fundamentals of a fair trial, his conviction will not be reversed.” (citation omitted)). - 23 - J-S04008-23 Any prejudice from the trial court’s jury instruction would have been de minimis, as “the uncontradicted evidence of [Appellant’s] 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.” Hair

2015Although the trial court erred in denying Appellant’ request to use the PWID conviction as impeachment evidence, the error was harmless. “[A]n error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Noel, 104 A.3d 1156, 1172 (Pa.2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 166 (Pa.1978)).

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

2022“Harmless error is present when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Garcia, 712 A.2d at 749 .

2022“Harmless error is present when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Garcia, 712 A.2d at 749.

2024Error is harmless if: (1) the prejudice to the appellant was nonexistent or de minimus; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted, substantially similar and properly admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence 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. -5- J-S09002-24 Hardy, 918 A.2d at 777 (citation omitted).

2014Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 777 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Even if a court does wrongly admit hearsay, this Court will not disturb a verdict on that basis alone if the admission constitutes harmless error.”) Error is harmless if: (1) the prejudice to the appellant was nonexistent or de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted, substantially similar and properly admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error c

2016Deren did not know Appellant prior to the murder, and Deren ____________________________________________ 2 “A harmless error analysis requires a determination by the appellate court that the uncontradicted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and that the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless.” Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 640 A.2d 896, 899 (Pa. 1994). -8- J-S39008-16 observed Appellant for several seconds.

2015Commonwealth v. Rasheed, 536 Pa. 567 , 570–71, 640 A.2d 896, 898 (1994); Commonwealth v. Norris, 498 Pa. 308 , 316–17, 446 A.2d 246, 250 (1982). “[A]n error may be harmless where the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Story, 476 Pa. at 412-413 , 383 A.2d at 166 .

2016Harmless error exists where, inter alia, “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. Atkinson, 987 A.2d 743, 752 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 8 A.3d 340 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).

2015Accordingly, Mr. Seay’s testimony did not prejudice Appellant and was cumulative of Ms. Strawser’s testimony, and the Commonwealth’s “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.” See Atkinson, 987 A.2d at 752 .

2025See Commonwealth v. Brown, 185 A.3d 316, 330 (Pa. 2018) (stating “[a] constitutional error cannot be found harmless unless an appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless,” and this Court will find harmless error where, inter alia, “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”).

2020As was stated recently by our Supreme Court in k• i Common ealth v. Brown, harmless error exists in the following circumstances: k;.. the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; F:. 2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other uritainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously i"' admitted evidence; or t;,:- i 3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwh'elming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict

2024As such, this Court did not err in denying ____________________________________________ 3 See Frein, 206 A.3d at 1070 (defining harmless error as “exist[ing] if the Commonwealth proves that (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 err

2020Even without Britton’s statements made in her home, “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.” Frein, 206 A.3d at 1070 .

2026Id. (citation omitted).

2020Our Supreme Court has found error harmless 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 -8- J-S13023-20 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.” Id. at 716 (citations omitted).