harmless error in Rhode Island

2026A harmless error is one that “in the setting of a particular case is so unimportant and insignificant that it may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” State v. Lopez, 943 A.2d 1035, 1043 (R.I. 2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967)). “[W]hether or not an error is harmless turns on whether it is reasonably possible that the error contributed to the conviction.” Id.

2026A harmless error is one that “in the setting of a particular case is so unimportant and insignificant that it may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” State v. Lopez, 943 A.2d 1035, 1043 (R.I. 2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967)). “[W]hether or not an error is harmless turns on whether it is reasonably possible that the error contributed to the conviction.” Id.

2025However, Confrontation Clause challenges are subject to a harmless-error analysis: “whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination - 19 - were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684; see also State v. Doctor, 644 A.2d 1287, 1290-91 (R.I. 1994) (applying harmless-error analysis in case alleging violations of article 1, section 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

2025Factors to consider when undertaking a harmless-error analysis in this context include “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Doctor, 644 A.2d at 1290 (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684).

2004To fall within the exception “the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’” Id. (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 142 (R.I.1991)).

2004“In order for the exception to apply, however, the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’ ” Id. at 141-42 (quoting State v. Estrada, 537 A.2d 983, 987 (R.I.1988)).

2024“In order to meet the harmless-error test, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” White, 296 A.3d at 706 (quoting Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822 ).

2024“In order to meet the harmless-error test, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” White, 296 A.3d at 706 (quoting Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822 ).

2023“In order to meet the harmless-error test, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Mercurio, 89 A.3d 813, 822 (R.I. 2014) (quoting State v. Smith, 446 A.2d 1035, 1036 (R.I. 1982)).

2016“In order to meet the harmless-error test, there must be proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” State v. Mercurio, 89 A.3d 813, 822 (R.I.2014) (quoting State v. Smith, 446 A.2d 1035, 1036 (R.I.1982)).

2024This Court - 16 - has listed several factors to be considered in determining whether an error was harmless, “including the relative degree of importance of the witness testimony to the prosecution’s case, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (deletions omitted) (quoting State v. Bustamante, 756 A.2d 758, 766 (R.I. 2000)).

2024This Court - 16 - has listed several factors to be considered in determining whether an error was harmless, “including the relative degree of importance of the witness testimony to the prosecution’s case, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (deletions omitted) (quoting State v. Bustamante, 756 A.2d 758, 766 (R.I. 2000)).

2017In order to effectively conduct a harmless error analysis, the particular evidence must be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)).

2017In order to effectively conduct a harmless error analysis, the particular evidence must be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629 (1993)).

2018"In order to effectively conduct a harmless error analysis, the particular evidence must be 'quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].' " State v. Terzian , 162 A.3d 1230 , 1244 (R.I. 2017) (quoting State v. Humphrey , 715 A.2d 1265 , 1276 (R.I. 1998) ).

2017In order to effectively conduct a harmless error analysis, the particular evidence must be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].” State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629 (1993)).

2004To fall within the exception “the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’” Id. (quoting State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 142 (R.I.1991)).

2001Although we have recognized an exception to the raise-or-waive rule if “basic constitutional rights are concerned,” State v. Mastracchio, 672 A.2d 438, 446 (R.I.1996), “the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’ ” State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 142 (R.I.1991).

2005There is no suggestion that defense counsel was trying to sandbag the prosecution or bypass established procedures; and, as discussed above, the failure of the jury to be given the element of force and coercion as one for them to resolve is clearly more than "a harmless error." It may be fairly argued that the McGehearty teaching was modified somewhat by the subsequent decisions of State v. Reis, 430 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1981) and State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725 (R.I. 1987).

1994For the exception to apply, the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be “sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,” and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon a “novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.” Donato, 592 A.2d at 142 (quoting Estrada, 537 A.2d at 987 and citing Burke, 522 A.2d at 731 ).

2026A harmless error is one that “in the setting of a particular case is so unimportant and insignificant that it may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” State v. Lopez, 943 A.2d 1035, 1043 (R.I. 2008) (brackets omitted) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967)). “[W]hether or not an error is harmless turns on whether it is reasonably possible that the error contributed to the conviction.” Id.

2023“Harmless error is recognized to be an error that ‘in the setting of a particular case [is] so unimportant and insignificant that [it] may, consistent with the Federal Constitution, be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.’” Terzian, 162 A.3d at 1244 (quoting State v. Lopez, 943 A.2d 1035, 1043 (R.I. 2008)).

1998(Emphasis added.) In order to conduct a harmless error analysis of the introduction of an involuntary confession, the offending statement must be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].” Brecht v.. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1717 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353, 367 (1993) (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08 , 111 S.Ct. at 1264 , 113 L.Ed.2d at 330 ).

1998(Emphasis added.) In order to conduct a harmless error analysis of the introduction of an involuntary confession, the offending statement must be “quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].” Brecht v.. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1717 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353, 367 (1993) (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08 , 111 S.Ct. at 1264 , 113 L.Ed.2d at 330 ).

2004“In order for the exception to apply, however, the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’ ” Id. at 141-42 (quoting State v. Estrada, 537 A.2d 983, 987 (R.I.1988)).

1999To fall within this exception, however, “the error asserted must go beyond the level of harmless error, the record must be ‘sufficient to permit a determination of the issue,’ and counsel’s failure to raise the issue must be premised upon ‘a novel rule of law that counsel could not reasonably have known during the trial.’ ” State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 142 (R.I.1991) (quoting State v. Estrada, 537 A.2d 983, 987 (R.I.1988)).

2018Accordingly, "[i]n cases in which there is 'overwhelming additional evidence indicative of [a] defendant's guilt,' this Court has determined that erroneously admitted evidence constituted harmless error." Id. (quoting State v. Perez , 882 A.2d 574 , 590 (R.I. 2005) ).

2016See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I.2005); see also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201,1215 (R.I.2012); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998).

1971While the Court has not specifically considered the issue of the applicability of the harmless-error doctrine to evidence illegally seized and admitted in violation of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 , recently, in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52-53 , 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1982 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 429 , the Court made reference to a possible fourth amendment violation by concluding: “Neither of petitioner’s remaining contentions warrants reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

1971While the Court has not specifically considered the issue of the applicability of the harmless-error doctrine to evidence illegally seized and admitted in violation of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 , recently, in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52-53 , 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1982 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 429 , the Court made reference to a possible fourth amendment violation by concluding: “Neither of petitioner’s remaining contentions warrants reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

2025However, Confrontation Clause challenges are subject to a harmless-error analysis: “whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination - 19 - were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684; see also State v. Doctor, 644 A.2d 1287, 1290-91 (R.I. 1994) (applying harmless-error analysis in case alleging violations of article 1, section 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

2025Factors to consider when undertaking a harmless-error analysis in this context include “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Doctor, 644 A.2d at 1290 (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684).

2016See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I.2005); see also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201,1215 (R.I.2012); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998).

2016See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I.2005); see also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201,1215 (R.I.2012); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998).

2016See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I.2005); see also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201,1215 (R.I.2012); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998).

2016See State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574, 590 (R.I. 2005); see also Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254 (1969); State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201, 1215 (R.I. 2012); State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265, 1276 (R.I. 1998).

2016United States v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2012); see United States v. Gray, 780 F.3d 458, 469 (1st Cir.2015).

2016United States v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2012); see United States v. Gray, 780 F.3d 458, 469 (1st Cir. 2015).

2016United States v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2012); see United States v. Gray, 780 F.3d 458, 469 (1st Cir.2015).

2016United States v. Sasso, 695 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2012); see United States v. Gray, 780 F.3d 458, 469 (1st Cir. 2015).

2013Thus, we apply a harmless-error standard and will dismiss an indictment only if we determine that “there has been flagrant prosecutorial misconduct accompanied by severe and incurable prejudice.” State v. Franco, 750 A.2d 415, 419 (R.I.2000) (quoting State v. DiPrete, 710 A.2d 1266, 1276 (R.I.1998)).

2008So, and they would have contacted us already if that was something there [sic] were interested in doing.” This Court applies a harmless-error inquiry in reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment. 7 Franco, 750 A.2d at 418 .

2010See , e.g. , State v. Horton , 871 A.2d 959 , 965-66 (R.I. 2005) (finding that despite the prosecutor's characterization of the defendant as a "monster" in closing argument, the denial of a mistrial could not rise beyond the level of harmless error); Boillard , 789 A.2d at 883-86 (stating that a cautionary instruction to the jurors after certain inappropriate remarks during a closing argument served as a proper remedy); *Page 10 Lariverie v. Dayton Safety Ladder Co. , 525 A.2d 892 , 899 (R.I. 1987) (finding no error in the trial justice's denial of a motion to strike plaintiff's introduction o

2008See id. at 966 (holding that the trial justice’s failure to rule on the defendant’s objection and the prosecution’s characterization of the defendant as a “monster” did not rise beyond the level of harmless error).

2009State v. Tiernan, 944 A.2d 176, 176 (R.I.2008) (mem.); Bustamante, 756 A.2d at 766 ; Texter, 594 A.2d at 378 ; see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

2008To the extent that our initial opinion in State v. Tieman, 941 A.2d 129 (R.I.2008), indicated that total or virtually total preclusion of cross-examination as to possible bias would require vacation of a verdict on a per se basis, we promptly issued an order acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court had held that its own landmark decision concerning impeachment for bias (viz., Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)) “should not be read as establishing, without analysis, a categorical exception to the harmless-error rule.” State v. Tiernan, 944 A.2d 176,

2008We have stated that “dismissal of an indictment is appropriate only ‘if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict’ or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the decision to indict was free from substantial influence of such violations.” State v. Mainelli, 543 A.2d 1311, 1314 (R.1.1988) (quoting Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 , 108 S.Ct. 2369 , 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988)); see also Franco, 750 A.2d at 418 ; State v. Chiellini, 557 A.2d 1195, 1199 (R.I.1989).

2000State v. Chiellini, 557 A.2d 1195, 1201 (R.I.1989).

2008In my opinion, this is a classic harmless-error analysis and is flawed in light of our holding in State v. Torres, 844 A.2d 155, 162 (R.I.2004).

2008In my opinion, this is a classic harmless-error analysis and is flawed in light of our holding in State v. Torres, 844 A.2d 155, 162 (R.I.2004).

2001He also attempted to explain in his own words what this statute prohibited. 14 As a result, we conclude, the jury “rendered] a ‘complete verdict’ on every element of the crime.” Hazard, 745 A.2d at 752 -53 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 11-15 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1835-36 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 49-50 (1999) (applying a harmless-error analysis to cases in which a jury could not render a finding on an actual element of the offense because they were not properly instructed by the trial justice)).

2001He also attempted to explain in his own words what this statute prohibited. 14 As a result, we conclude, the jury “rendered] a ‘complete verdict’ on every element of the crime.” Hazard, 745 A.2d at 752 -53 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 11-15 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1835-36 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 49-50 (1999) (applying a harmless-error analysis to cases in which a jury could not render a finding on an actual element of the offense because they were not properly instructed by the trial justice)).

2008Furthermore, this Court appreciates that “the application of the harmless error rule must be used guardedly lest it destroy or dilute constitutional guarantees.” Lachapelle, 112 R.I. at 113 , 308 A.2d at 471 (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 50 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (Harlan, J., dissenting)).

2008Furthermore, this Court appreciates that “the application of the harmless error rule must be used guardedly lest it destroy or dilute constitutional guarantees.” Lachapelle, 112 R.I. at 113 , 308 A.2d at 471 (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. at 50 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (Harlan, J., dissenting)).

2002Id. at 1358 n. 5 (quoting Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 856 (D.C.App.1978) and State v. DeBarros, 441 A.2d 549, 552 (R.I.1982)).

1989See also State v. Carrera, 528 A.2d 331 (R.I. 1987), where the erroneous exclusion of a witness’s prior history was found to be harmless in a situation in which other evidence alerted the jury to past problems, and State v. Freeman, 473 A.2d 1149 (R.I. 1984), where a total preclusion of inquiry into motive, bias, or prejudice of a key witness was found to be not harmless.