Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2023 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hojan v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Hojan v. State, 3 So. 3d 1204, 1210 (Fla. 2009) (“This Court has held that where the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.”). 2021In considering whether error is harmful, “[i]t is well settled that even incorrectly admitted evidence is deemed harmless and may not be grounds for reversal when it is essentially the same as or merely corroborative of other properly considered testimony at trial.” Id.; see also Hojan v. State, 3 So. 3d 1204, 1210 (Fla. 2009) (“[W]here the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.”); cf. Anderson v. State, 230 So. 3d 175, 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (erroneous admission of hearsay testimony could n | 6 | 6 |
Henyard v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Hutchinson, 882 So.2d at 952-53 (finding the introduction of statements harmless where the statements were not the only evidence on the issue); Henyard, 689 So.2d at 251 (finding any error harmless in introduction of victim’s excited utterances by officer where victim also testified at trial to same information). 2009Additionally, Hayward confessed to the burglary and confirmed all the events of *34 the robbery, and there was extensive forensic evidence tying Hayward to the murder. “[W]here the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.” Hojan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204, 1210 (Fla.2009); see also Henyard, 689 So.2d at 251 (finding the introduction of the victim’s statements through the officer’s testimony constituted harmless error where the statements were also introduced through the victim’s testimony). | 2 | 2 |
GLENROY ANDERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen1 sentence2021In considering whether error is harmful, “[i]t is well settled that even incorrectly admitted evidence is deemed harmless and may not be grounds for reversal when it is essentially the same as or merely corroborative of other properly considered testimony at trial.” Id.; see also Hojan v. State, 3 So. 3d 1204, 1210 (Fla. 2009) (“[W]here the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.”); cf. Anderson v. State, 230 So. 3d 175, 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (erroneous admission of hearsay testimony could n | 1 | 1 |
Esteban v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Hojan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204, 1210 (Fla.2009) (“[W]here the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.”); Esteban v. State, 967 So.2d 1095, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (trial court committed harmless error in allowing a witness to testify that the victim stated she knew her attacker, where the witness’s testimony was merely cumulative to the victim’s testimony); Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“It is well settled that even incorrectly admitted evidence is deemed harmle | 1 | 1 |
Mariano v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Cf. Mariano v. State, 933 So.2d 111, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (trial court’s error admitting hearsay was not harmless where the victim’s statement relayed by one witness went beyond the victim’s statements relayed by other witnesses and were inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony); but see Elysee, 920 So.2d at 1208 (“Allowing the officer to bolster the credibility of the victim, who was the only witness to the crime, with her prior consistent statements, was prejudicial.”). | 1 | 1 |
Erickson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Hojan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204, 1210 (Fla.2009) (“[W]here the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.”); Esteban v. State, 967 So.2d 1095, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (trial court committed harmless error in allowing a witness to testify that the victim stated she knew her attacker, where the witness’s testimony was merely cumulative to the victim’s testimony); Erickson v. State, 565 So.2d 328, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“It is well settled that even incorrectly admitted evidence is deemed harmle | 1 | 1 |
Hutchinson v. Stateyellow2 sentences2009See, e.g., Hutchinson, 882 So.2d at 952-53 (finding the introduction of statements harmless where the statements were not the only evidence on the issue); Henyard, 689 So.2d at 251 (finding any error harmless in introduction of victim's excited utterances by officer where victim also testified at trial to same information). 2009See, e.g., Hutchinson, 882 So.2d at 952-53 (finding the introduction of statements harmless where the statements were not the only evidence on the issue); Henyard, 689 So.2d at 251 (finding any error harmless in introduction of victim’s excited utterances by officer where victim also testified at trial to same information). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Elysee v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Cf. Mariano v. State, 933 So.2d 111, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (trial court’s error admitting hearsay was not harmless where the victim’s statement relayed by one witness went beyond the victim’s statements relayed by other witnesses and were inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony); but see Elysee, 920 So.2d at 1208 (“Allowing the officer to bolster the credibility of the victim, who was the only witness to the crime, with her prior consistent statements, was prejudicial.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yancey v. Ludwig
green
1 sentence2010Other potentially prejudicial information that he cites in his brief and contends came from the PSI was actually contained in a police investigative report from 1988 and in Dr. Riebsame’s written report, neither of which was admitted into evidence or included in the PSI. “[Wjhere the evidence introduced in error was not the only evidence on the issue to which the improper evidence related, the introduction can be harmless.” Hojan v. State, 3 So.3d 1204, 1210 (Fla.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 741 , — L.Ed.2d -, 78 U.S.L.W. 3319 (2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Treasure, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local No. 133
green
1 sentence1955The allegations of the sworn complaint together with the evidence introduced at the hearing upon the application for a temporary restraining order, at which hearing all parties hereto were represented, are sufficient under our opinion in Miami Typographical Union v. Ormerod, Fla. 1952, 61 So.2d 753 , the cases cited therein, and Treasure, Inc., v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' Union, supra, Fla., 72 So.2d 670 , to establish the fact that the picketing which is being carried on was and is for an unlawful purpose. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Miami Typographical Union No. 430 v. Ormerod
green
1 sentence1955The allegations of the sworn complaint together with the evidence introduced at the hearing upon the application for a temporary restraining order, at which hearing all parties hereto were represented, are sufficient under our opinion in Miami Typographical Union v. Ormerod, Fla. 1952, 61 So.2d 753 , the cases cited therein, and Treasure, Inc., v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' Union, supra, Fla., 72 So.2d 670 , to establish the fact that the picketing which is being carried on was and is for an unlawful purpose. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.