conviction despite error (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

conviction despite error in Florida

8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. DiGuiliogreen
fla · 1986 · cited in 8 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2007–2021
2 sentences

2021“To affirm a conviction despite error at trial, the [s]tate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error ‘did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’” Id. at 17-18 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986)).

2018To affirm a conviction despite error at trial, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error "did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively *18 stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction." State v. DiGuilio , 491 So.2d 1129 , 1135 (Fla. 1986).

88
Cuervo v. Stategreen
fla · 2007 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008
2 sentences

2008State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986); see also Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155, 167 (Fla.2007) (holding that to justify affirmance of a conviction despite error at trial, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction); Harris v. State, 959 So.2d 794, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Canady, J., concurring specially) (same).

2007As explained in Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155 (Fla.2007): To justify affirmance of a conviction despite error at trial, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error “did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).

12
Deviney v. Stategreen
fla · 2013 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Harmless Error To affirm the conviction despite the error, the State bears the burden of proving that “ ‘there [wa]s no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’ ” Deviney v. State, 112 So.3d 57, 79 (Fla.2013) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986)).

11
Harris v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986); see also Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155, 167 (Fla.2007) (holding that to justify affirmance of a conviction despite error at trial, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction); Harris v. State, 959 So.2d 794, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (Canady, J., concurring specially) (same).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
LeShannon Jerome Shelly v. State of Florida green
fla · 2018
2 sentences

2021“To affirm a conviction despite error at trial, the [s]tate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error ‘did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’” Id. at 17-18 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986)).

2021Under DiGuilio, an appellate court’s focus is on the error’s overall effect “on the trier of fact; not to substitute itself for the trier of fact and reweigh the evidence.” Shelly, 262 So. 3d at 18 (citing DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1139 ).

12021–2021

Where else courts name it

FL 8 (2007–2021) NM 6 (2009–2025) IN 5 (1999–2020) AZ 4 (2009–2018) IL 4 (2003–2014) OR 3 (2012–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check