harmless error in North Dakota

2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).

1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).

2023“When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors— ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).

1998Allen, 397 U.S. 337 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 . [¶ 10] When the constitutional right of presence is violated, it is subject to the harmless error standard for constitutional errors — “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (holding a reviewing court must declare error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless).

2021Stated simply, harmless error is error that is not prejudicial . . . .” State v. Acker, 2015 ND 278, ¶ 12 , 871 N.W.2d 603 . [¶8] This Court has recently held that “[u]nless clear from the record that any response a party could make would be futile, justice requires a party be granted the opportunity to respond as required under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2.” Davis v. Davis, 2021 ND 24, ¶ 9 .

2021Stated simply, harmless error is error that is not prejudicial . . . .” State v. Acker, 2015 ND 278, ¶ 12 , 871 N.W.2d 603 . [¶8] This Court has recently held that “[u]nless clear from the record that any response a party could make would be futile, justice requires a party be granted the opportunity to respond as required under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2.” Davis v. Davis, 2021 ND 24, ¶ 9 .

2025Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” “The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and promotes respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 31 , 708 N.W.2d 913 (cleaned up) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)). [¶8] The district court did not err in entering the order because the part

2013See State v. Aguero, 2010 ND 210, ¶ 31 , 791 N.W.2d 1 (improper use of a defendant’s silence is considered under a harmless error analysis); State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 32 , 708 N.W.2d 913 (drafting of an insufficient charging document is subject to a harmless error analysis); State v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 386, 390 (N.D.1996) (failure to provide reasonable advance notice of the admission of a prior bad act under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) is subject to a harmless error analysis); State v. Huber, 555 N.W.2d 791, 793 (N.D.1996) (applying a harmless error standard to jury instruction). [¶ 16] Wilson ar

2025Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” “The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and promotes respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 31 , 708 N.W.2d 913 (cleaned up) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999)). [¶8] The district court did not err in entering the order because the part

2013See State v. Aguero, 2010 ND 210, ¶ 31 , 791 N.W.2d 1 (improper use of a defendant’s silence is considered under a harmless error analysis); State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 32 , 708 N.W.2d 913 (drafting of an insufficient charging document is subject to a harmless error analysis); State v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 386, 390 (N.D.1996) (failure to provide reasonable advance notice of the admission of a prior bad act under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) is subject to a harmless error analysis); State v. Huber, 555 N.W.2d 791, 793 (N.D.1996) (applying a harmless error standard to jury instruction). [¶ 16] Wilson ar

2019"Stated simply, harmless error is error that is not prejudicial." Hamilton v. State , 2017 ND 54 , ¶ 8, 890 N.W.2d 810 (quoting State v. Acker , 2015 ND 278 , ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 603 ).

2019"Stated simply, harmless error is error that is not prejudicial." Hamilton v. State , 2017 ND 54 , ¶ 8, 890 N.W.2d 810 (quoting State v. Acker , 2015 ND 278 , ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 603 ).

2019State v. Patterson , 2014 ND 193 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 113 ("Reversal of a conviction is warranted only if the admitted testimony is so prejudicial that substantial injury occurred and absent the error a different decision would have resulted.") (citation omitted). [¶9] A harmless error is "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights [and it] must be disregarded." N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a).

2019State v. Patterson , 2014 ND 193 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 113 ("Reversal of a conviction is warranted only if the admitted testimony is so prejudicial that substantial injury occurred and absent the error a different decision would have resulted.") (citation omitted). [¶9] A harmless error is "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights [and it] must be disregarded." N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a).

2015We explained in Hoff, at ¶ 19: Under I2.W.&, the district court’s error in failing to exercise its discretion to independently decide whether to remove Hoffs restraints is subjected to the harmless error test. [In re] R.W.S., 2007 ND 37, ¶ 19 , 728 N.W.2d 326 .

2015We explained in Hoff, at ¶ 19: Under I2.W.&, the district court’s error in failing to exercise its discretion to independently decide whether to remove Hoffs restraints is subjected to the harmless error test. [In re] R.W.S., 2007 ND 37, ¶ 19 , 728 N.W.2d 326 .

2002Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments, 2002 ND 65, ¶ 26 , 643 N.W.2d 29 ; see also In re R.O., 2001 ND 137, ¶ 22 , 631 N.W.2d 159 (any deficiency in lower court’s procedure in admitting testimony of addiction counselor did not affect the outcome of the case and was harmless error where the appellate court, after de novo review, concluded there was clear and convincing evidence supporting parental termination, without the addiction counselor’s testimony). [¶ 12] Considerable evidence was introduced at the termination hearing to support the juvenile court’s finding that these boys

2002Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments, 2002 ND 65, ¶ 26 , 643 N.W.2d 29 ; see also In re R.O., 2001 ND 137, ¶ 22 , 631 N.W.2d 159 (any deficiency in lower court’s procedure in admitting testimony of addiction counselor did not affect the outcome of the case and was harmless error where the appellate court, after de novo review, concluded there was clear and convincing evidence supporting parental termination, without the addiction counselor’s testimony). [¶ 12] Considerable evidence was introduced at the termination hearing to support the juvenile court’s finding that these boys

2024“If evidence was admitted in error, 7 this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant’s rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.” Sanchez, at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 21 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ).

2024“If evidence was admitted in error, 7 this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant’s rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.” Sanchez, at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 21 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ).

2024“Nonprejudicial mistakes by the lower court constitute harmless error and are not grounds for reversal.” Id.

2006Id.

2024“If evidence was admitted in error, 7 this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant’s rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.” Sanchez, at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 21 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ).

2024“If evidence was admitted in error, 7 this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant’s rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.” Sanchez, at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 21 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ).

2014Patterson further argues the confidential informant’s statement regarding his prior bad acts had such an adverse effect on his right to a fair trial that the court should have ordered a mistrial. [¶ 7] Assuming the informant’s answer was improper, we analyze Patterson’s argument that failure to declare a mistrial was obvious error. “[E]rror under [Rule 404(b)] is subject to a harmless error analysis.” State v. Stewart, 2006 ND 39, ¶ 17 , 710 N.W.2d 403 ; State v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 386, 390 (N.D.1996).

2014Patterson further argues the confidential informant’s statement regarding his prior bad acts had such an adverse effect on his right to a fair trial that the court should have ordered a mistrial. [¶ 7] Assuming the informant’s answer was improper, we analyze Patterson’s argument that failure to declare a mistrial was obvious error. “[E]rror under [Rule 404(b)] is subject to a harmless error analysis.” State v. Stewart, 2006 ND 39, ¶ 17 , 710 N.W.2d 403 ; State v. Thompson, 552 N.W.2d 386, 390 (N.D.1996).

2011In Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g., United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez, 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is intended

2011In Pierre , 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g. , United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez , 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is inten

2011In Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g., United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez, 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is intended

2011In Pierre , 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g. , United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez , 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is inten

2011In Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g., United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez, 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is intended

2011In Pierre , 120 F.3d at 1155-56 , the court of appeals also observed that the rule did not define government consent and that the circuits had further divided on the interpretation of this provision of the rule: Although this failure [to comply with the writing requirement] has been more readily excused as a formality that can be forgiven under the harmless error provision of the rule, see, e.g. , United States v. Yasak , 884 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez , 887 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1989), the Advisory Committee Notes to the rule indicate that the writing requirement is inten

2009We have stated: “Nonprejudicial mistakes by the trial court constitute harmless error and are not grounds for reversal.” Huesers v. Huesers, 1998 ND 54, ¶ 11 , 574 N.W.2d 880 .

2009We have stated: “Nonprejudicial mistakes by the trial court constitute harmless error and are not grounds for reversal.” Huesers v. Huesers, 1998 ND 54, ¶ 11 , 574 N.W.2d 880 .

2005The harmless error doctrine “recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). [¶ 35] Our case law recognizes that even “constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown they were harmless.” City of Bismarck v. Judkins, 2005 ND 143, ¶ 7 , 701 N.W.2d 911 .

2005The harmless error doctrine “recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). [¶ 35] Our case law recognizes that even “constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown they were harmless.” City of Bismarck v. Judkins, 2005 ND 143, ¶ 7 , 701 N.W.2d 911 .