harmless error in Alabama

2024However, although a trial court errs when it fails to hold a requested hearing on a Rule 59 postjudgment motion, the supreme court has explained that such error does not always require reversal: 11 CL-2024-0041 " 'Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court.' "Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376

2023However, although a trial court errs when it fails to hold a requested hearing on a Rule 59 postjudgment motion, the supreme court has explained that such error does not always require reversal: " 'Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no 4 CL-2022-0510 probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objective standard of review as that applied in the trial court.' "Greene v. Thompson, 554 So. 2d 376,

2026App. 1997) (recognizing that " '[t]he purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial' " and that the harmless-error rule applied because the evidence of the defendant's guilt was "ironclad") (quoting Davis v. State, 718 So. 2d 1148, 1164 (Ala. Crim.

2023"The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing." Davis, 718 So. 2d at 1164. " 'The admission of hearsay evidence in violation of the accused's constitutional right of confrontation is not automatically a ground for reversal.' " Chavers v. State, 714 So. 2d 341, 344 (Ala. Crim.

2018See also Ex parte Greathouse , 624 So.2d 208 , 210 (Ala. 1993) (holding that the proper harmless-error inquiry asks, absent the improperly introduced evidence, "is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty").

2018See also Ex parte Greathouse , 624 So.2d 208 , 210 (Ala. 1993) (holding that the proper harmless-error inquiry asks, absent the improperly introduced evidence, "is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty").

2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12

2012P., provides: “ ‘No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor new trial granted in any civil or criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, nor for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.’ “The Court of Criminal Appeals has further stated

2026App. 1990), aff'd, 590 So. 2d 369 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 974 , 112 S.Ct. 1594 , 118 L.Ed.2d 310 (1992). 'Prosecutorial misconduct is subject to a harmless error analysis.' Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d at 131 (citations omitted); Smith v. State, 698 So. 2d at 203 (citations omitted)." Simmons v. State, 797 So. 2d 1134, 1161-62 (Ala. Crim.

2024Ed. 2d 310 (1992). 'Prosecutorial misconduct is subject 59 CR-2022-1280 to a harmless error analysis.' Bush v. State, 695 So. 2d at 131 (citations omitted); Smith v. State, 698 So. 2d at 203 (citations omitted)." " 'Simmons v. State, 797 So. 2d 1134 , 1161–62 (Ala. Crim.

2015See also , Giles v. State , 632 So.2d 568 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1213], 114 S.Ct. 2694 , 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994) ; Ex parte Parker , 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, [509] U.S. [929], 113 S.Ct. 3053 , 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993) ; Lawhorn v. State , [ 581 So.2d 1159 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) ]; Hooks v. State , 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989) ; and Ex parte Whisenhant , [ 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989) ], appl

2013See, also, Giles v. State, 632 So.2d 568 (Ala. Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1213], 114 S.Ct. 2694 , 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994); Ex parte Parker, 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, [509] U.S. [929], 113 S.Ct. 3053 , 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993); Lawhorn v. State, [ 581 So.2d 1159 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) ]; Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989); and Ex parte Whisenhant, [ 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989) ], applying a

2024App. P.; and Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Ala. 1993)("failure to grant a hearing on a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59(g) is reversible error only if it 'probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties' ").' "Flagstar Enters., Inc. v. Foster, 779 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Ala. 2000). " ' " 'Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the

2015P.; and Kitchens v. Maye, 623 So.2d 1082, 1088 (Ala.1993) (‘failure to grant a hearing on a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59(g) is reversible error only if it “probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties” ’).” Flagstar Enters., Inc. v. Foster, 779 So.2d 1220, 1221 (Ala.2000). “ ‘ “Harmless error occurs, within the context of a Rule 59(g) motion, where there is either no probable merit in the grounds asserted in the motion, or where the appellate court resolves the issues presented therein, as a matter of law, adversely to the movant, by application of the same objec

2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12

2013“As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are ‘so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ,’ a harmless error analysis can be used.” Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 129, 140 (Ala.1984).

2016“While the trial court’s sentencing order is defective, the errors are not so egregious or substantial as to require a new sentencing order.... ‘[T]he harmless error rule does apply in capital cases at the sentence hearing.’ Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Ala.1983). ‘As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are “so clear and convincing-that virtually no reasonable person could differ,” a harmless error analysis can be used.’ Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 12

2013“As long as the trial judge properly exercises his discretion and the facts indicating the death penalty are ‘so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ,’ a harmless error analysis can be used.” Baldwin v. State, 456 So.2d 117, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), affirmed, Ex parte Baldwin, 456 So.2d 129, 140 (Ala.1984).

1990As the Supreme Court stated, if no mitigating circumstances were found, "a harmless-error analysis" would apply. 463 U.S. at 955 , 103 S.Ct. at 3427-28.

1988See Barclay v. Florida , 463 U.S. 939 , 103 S.Ct. 3418 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983) (wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the application of the harmless error rule to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital case was constitutional).

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State: "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State , 728 So.2d at 688 .

2004As this Court noted in Grantham v. State: "Violations of the confrontation clause are, like many other constitutional errors, subject to a harmless error analysis." 580 So.2d at 58 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673 , 680-84 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)); see also Withee v. State , 728 So.2d at 688 .

2014P. “The harmless error rule is to be applied with extreme caution in capital cases.” Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Ala.1984) (citing Seibold v. State, 287 Ala. 549 , 253 So.2d 302 (1970)).

2010Although we recognize that the harmless-error rule is to be applied with extreme caution in capital cases, see Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Ala.1984), we nevertheless find the harmless-error rule applicable here.

2026"The Alabama Supreme Court in Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hospital, 833 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2002), returned to the harmless-error analysis when reviewing a circuit court's refusal to remove a prospective juror for cause.

2017See also Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hospital , 833 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2002) ("Because a defendant has no right to a perfect jury or a jury of his or her choice, but rather only to an 'impartial' jury, see Ala. Const. 1901 § 6, we find the harmless-error analysis to be the proper method of assuring the recognition of that right.); Dailey v. State , 828 So.2d 340 (Ala. 2001).

2016Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the harmless-error doctrine under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), applies to the erroneous admission of eyewitness testimony based on an unduly suggestive lineup.

2016Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the harmless-error doctrine under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), applies to the erroneous admission of eyewitness testimony based on an unduly suggestive lineup.

2014The court said: “When reviewing the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession, the appellate court, as it does with the admission of other forms of improperly admitted evidence, simply reviews the remainder of the evidence against the defendant to determine whether the admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 310 . “ ‘In order for the harmless error doctrine to be applied in this situation, the evidence against the accused must be overwhelming.’ Smith v. State, 623 So.2d 369, 372 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).” McCray v. State, 629 So.2

2001In Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that the harmless error doctrine could be applied to coerced confessions received into evidence at trial.

2010See Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, 900 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), affirmed, 675 So.2d 905 (Ala.1996). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565, 575 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), affirmed, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, Musgrove v. Alabama, 486 U.S. 1036 , 108 S.Ct. 2024 , 100 L.Ed.2d 611 (1988).” Whatley v. State, 146 So.3d 437, 464 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (opinion on return to remand).

2010“The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.” Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565, 575 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), affirmed, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, Musgrove v. Alabama, 486 U.S. 1036 , 108 S.Ct. 2024 , 100 L.Ed.2d 611 (1988).

2010See Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, 900 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), affirmed, 675 So.2d 905 (Ala.1996). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565, 575 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), affirmed, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, Musgrove v. Alabama, 486 U.S. 1036 , 108 S.Ct. 2024 , 100 L.Ed.2d 611 (1988).” Whatley v. State, 146 So.3d 437, 464 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (opinion on return to remand).

2010“The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.” Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565, 575 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), affirmed, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, Musgrove v. Alabama, 486 U.S. 1036 , 108 S.Ct. 2024 , 100 L.Ed.2d 611 (1988).

2015See also , Giles v. State , 632 So.2d 568 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1213], 114 S.Ct. 2694 , 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994) ; Ex parte Parker , 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, [509] U.S. [929], 113 S.Ct. 3053 , 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993) ; Lawhorn v. State , [ 581 So.2d 1159 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) ]; Hooks v. State , 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989) ; and Ex parte Whisenhant , [ 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989) ], appl

2013See, also, Giles v. State, 632 So.2d 568 (Ala. Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1213], 114 S.Ct. 2694 , 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994); Ex parte Parker, 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, [509] U.S. [929], 113 S.Ct. 3053 , 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993); Lawhorn v. State, [ 581 So.2d 1159 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) ]; Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989); and Ex parte Whisenhant, [ 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989) ], applying a