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.
59 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hamlingreen2 sentences2017"Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error." State v. Hamlin , 146 Vt. 97 , 106, 499 A.2d 45 , 52 (1985). 2017"Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error." State v. Hamlin , 146 Vt. 97 , 106, 499 A.2d 45 , 52 (1985). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2016In State v. Carter, this Court considered the harmless error standard in depth. 164 Vt. 545, 552 , 674 A.2d 1258, 1263 (1996). 2016In State v. Carter, this Court considered the harmless error standard in depth. 164 Vt. 545, 552 , 674 A.2d 1258, 1263 (1996). | 7 | 7 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2002See State v. Carter, 164 Vt. 545, 553-57 , 674 A.2d 1258, 1264-66 (1996) (adopting the standard applied in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), for constitutional and nonconstitutional error and noting standard was a restatement of principle that error “could not be harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fuller, 168 Vt. at 408 , 721 A.2d at 484 (“Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear 1988See Rinehart v. Brewer, 561 F.2d 126, 132 (8th Cir. 1977) (“defendant was materially prejudiced by counsel’s failure to adequately investigate the possibility of suppression” in a case where counsel knew that defendant, a juvenile, was subject to a five-hour police interrogation without the benefit of advice from an attorney or his parents); Mason v. Balcom, 531 F.2d 717, 724 (5th Cir. 1976) (defendant did not receive reasonably effective assistance of counsel prior to entering guilty plea where counsel, among other things, did not ask for a hearing on voluntariness of confession or look for i | 5 | 7 |
In re R.W. and N.W.green2 sentences2026Under the harmless-error standard we apply to termination cases, however, “an error warrants reversal only if a substantial right of the party is affected.” In re R.W., 2011 VT 124, ¶ 17 , 191 Vt. 108 (quotation omitted). 2026Under the harmless-error standard we apply to termination cases, however, “an error warrants reversal only if a substantial right of the party is affected.” In re R.W., 2011 VT 124, ¶ 17 , 191 Vt. 108 (quotation omitted). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Huntgreen2 sentences2023King v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 34 , J 9, 175 Vt. 220 ; State v. Mott, 166 Vt. 188, 193 (1997); State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90 (1988) (noting that constitutional violations are subject to the harmless error rule). 2010See, e.g., State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90 , 555 A.2d 369, 373-74 (1988) (holding that “the doctrine of harmless error applies” when a due process violation is alleged and affirming a conviction when defendant “failed to demonstrate prejudice”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Wright, 154 Vt. 512, 519-20 , 581 A.2d 720, 725 (1989) (“Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error.” (quotation omitted)). 2015See State v. Wright, 154 Vt. 512, 519-20 , 581 A.2d 720, 725 (1989) (“Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error.” (quotation omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Hastinggreen2 sentences1986The United States Supreme Court announced the doctrine of harmless error in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967), and clarified the doctrine in United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983): [I]t is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations. 1986The United States Supreme Court announced the doctrine of harmless error in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 (1967), and clarified the doctrine in United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983): [I]t is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations. | 2 | 3 |
Mosley v. Stategreen2 sentences2007P'ship v. Heublein, 246 Conn. 815 , 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n. 20 (D.C.1999) (describing "different harmless error analysis" under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C.1989) (explaining that review for "actual prejudice" under the traditional harmless error analysis is "inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety"); Mosley v. State, 141 S. 2007P’ship v. Heublein, 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (Conn. 1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n.20 (D.C. 1999) (describing “different harmless error analysis” under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) (explaining that review for “actual prejudice” under the traditional harmless error analysis is “inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety”); Mosley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 816, | 2 | 2 |
Abington Ltd. Partnership v. Heubleingreen2 sentences2007P'ship v. Heublein, 246 Conn. 815 , 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n. 20 (D.C.1999) (describing "different harmless error analysis" under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C.1989) (explaining that review for "actual prejudice" under the traditional harmless error analysis is "inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety"); Mosley v. State, 141 S. 2007P’ship v. Heublein, 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (Conn. 1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n.20 (D.C. 1999) (describing “different harmless error analysis” under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) (explaining that review for “actual prejudice” under the traditional harmless error analysis is “inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety”); Mosley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 816, | 2 | 2 |
Scott v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007P'ship v. Heublein, 246 Conn. 815 , 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n. 20 (D.C.1999) (describing "different harmless error analysis" under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C.1989) (explaining that review for "actual prejudice" under the traditional harmless error analysis is "inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety"); Mosley v. State, 141 S. 2007P’ship v. Heublein, 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (Conn. 1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n.20 (D.C. 1999) (describing “different harmless error analysis” under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) (explaining that review for “actual prejudice” under the traditional harmless error analysis is “inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety”); Mosley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 816, | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bacongreen2 sentences2006Even where we find such abuse, however, Rule 52(a) of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure instructs us to disregard “[a]ny error ... which does not affect substantial rights.” V.R.Cr.P. 52(a); see State v. Bacon, 169 Vt. 268, 273 , 733 A.2d 50, 54 (1999) (“The harmless error doctrine applies to sentencing proceedings.”). 2006Even where we find such abuse, however, Rule 52(a) of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure instructs us to disregard “[a]ny error ... which does not affect substantial rights.” V.R.Cr.P. 52(a); see State v. Bacon, 169 Vt. 268, 273 , 733 A.2d 50, 54 (1999) (“The harmless error doctrine applies to sentencing proceedings.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nashgreen2 sentences1986See also State v. Nash, 144 Vt. 427, 434 , 479 A.2d 757, 761 (1984). 1986See also State v. Nash, 144 Vt. 427, 434 , 479 A.2d 757, 761 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mumleygreen2 sentences2017"When conducting a harmless-error analysis to determine whether the jury would have convicted without the offending evidence, we consider the extent to which the offending evidence was inculpatory, whether it was cumulative or duplicative of other evidence, and how prominent it was at trial." State v. Mumley , 2009 VT 48 , ¶ 20, 186 Vt. 52 , 978 A.2d 6 . ¶ 21. 2017"When conducting a harmless-error analysis to determine whether the jury would have convicted without the offending evidence, we consider the extent to which the offending evidence was inculpatory, whether it was cumulative or duplicative of other evidence, and how prominent it was at trial." State v. Mumley , 2009 VT 48 , ¶ 20, 186 Vt. 52 , 978 A.2d 6 . ¶ 21. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Glen Haskins, Jr.green2 sentences2020For instance, in criminal proceedings, the harmless-error standard is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Haskins, 2016 VT 79, ¶ 17 , 202 Vt. 461 , 150 A.3d 202 . 2020For instance, in criminal proceedings, the harmless-error standard is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Haskins, 2016 VT 79, ¶ 17 , 202 Vt. 461 , 150 A.3d 202 . | 1 | 2 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2006Cited in Carella, and similarly ignoring Johnson, was the earlier holding in Rose v. Clark that the harmless-error test did apply to an erroneous rebuttable-presumption instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on the element of malice from the state to a murder defendant. 478 U.S. 570, 580-81 (1986). 2006Cited in Carella , and similarly ignoring Johnson , was the earlier holding in Rose v. Clark that the harmless-error test did apply to an erroneous rebuttable-presumption instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on the element of malice from the state to a murder defendant. 478 U.S. at 580-81 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mottgreen1 sentence2023King v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 34 , J 9, 175 Vt. 220 ; State v. Mott, 166 Vt. 188, 193 (1997); State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90 (1988) (noting that constitutional violations are subject to the harmless error rule). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Antoinette S.green1 sentence2021See In re R.W., 2011 VT 124, ¶ 17 , 191 Vt. 108 , 39 A.3d 682 (“We have employed the harmless error standard in termination cases, and, under that standard, an error warrants reversal only if a substantial right of the party is affected.” (citation omitted) (quotation omitted)); see also In re Antoinette S., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 26 (holding that court violated ICWA notice provision by conducting termination hearing less than ten days after BIA received notice 8 On appeal, mother does not challenge the court’s decision denying her request to obtain genetic material from K.S. 16 and failing to m | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coneygreen2 sentences2017See State v. Coney , 266 Conn. 787 , 835 A.2d 977 , 987 (2003) ("In the event that the trial court acted unreasonably in denying a continuance, *587 the reviewing court must also engage in harmless error analysis." (quotation omitted)). 2017See State v. Coney , 266 Conn. 787 , 835 A.2d 977 , 987 (2003) ("In the event that the trial court acted unreasonably in denying a continuance, *587 the reviewing court must also engage in harmless error analysis." (quotation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reynoldsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Beayongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fellowsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re BSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Nicklgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Elmore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brillongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lyndsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Oscarsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Boliogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nealegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nelsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fullergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Corlissgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Duffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Catsamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Januszewskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carlos Garza De Luna v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ayersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Soucy v. Soucy Motors, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lipka
green
2 sentences2016We noted that “it is important to understand that it is not the role of this Court to determine whether [a] defendant is guilty,” and quoted Chief Judge Harry Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who cautioned against the seductiveness 22 of relying on the harmless-error rule where “a defendant’s conviction appears well justified by the record.” Id. (quoting H. 2016We noted that “it is important to understand that it is not the role of this Court to determine whether [a] defendant is guilty,” and quoted Chief Judge Harry Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who cautioned against the seductiveness of relying on the harmless-error rule where “‘a defendant’s conviction appears well justified by the record.’ ” Id. (quoting H. | 3 | 2010–2016 |
In re G.F.
green
2 sentences2025“For example, where a finding of fact that supports the conclusion of the court is clearly erroneous, we find harmless error if other valid findings also support the court’s conclusion.” In re G.F., 2007 VT 11, ¶ 14 , 181 Vt. 593 (mem.). 2025“For example, where a finding of fact that supports the conclusion of the court is clearly erroneous, we find harmless error if other valid findings also support the court’s conclusion.” In re G.F., 2007 VT 11, ¶ 14 , 181 Vt. 593 (mem.). | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Harris v. United States
green
2 sentences2007P'ship v. Heublein, 246 Conn. 815 , 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n. 20 (D.C.1999) (describing "different harmless error analysis" under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C.1989) (explaining that review for "actual prejudice" under the traditional harmless error analysis is "inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety"); Mosley v. State, 141 S. 2007P’ship v. Heublein, 717 A.2d 1232, 1238 (Conn. 1998) (acknowledging Liljeberg and requiring a new trial where judge failed to recuse himself in violation of Canon 3); Harris v. United States, 738 A.2d 269 , 280 n.20 (D.C. 1999) (describing “different harmless error analysis” under Liljeberg for appearances of partiality); Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, 750 (D.C. 1989) (explaining that review for “actual prejudice” under the traditional harmless error analysis is “inconsistent with the goal of Canon 3[E(1)] to prevent even the appearance of impropriety”); Mosley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 816, | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Carella v. California
green
2 sentences2006Explicitly contradicting the supposed holding in Johnson, and contrary to the majority's logic here, the court in Carrella ruled that a "Sandstrom error is subject to the harmless error rule." Id. (emphasis added). 2006Explicitly contradicting the supposed holding in Johnson , and contrary to the majority’s logic here, the Court in Carella ruled that a “Sandstrom error is subject to the harmless-error rule.” Id. (emphasis added). 7 The Carella Court repeated its earlier holding in Sandstrom that, although a trial court’s “mandatory directions directly foreclosed independent jury consideration of whether the facts proved established certain elements of the offenses ... and even though the jury might have considered the presumption to be conclusive,” the constitutional error was still subject to harmless-error | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2006Harmless error is found even when necessary elements are omitted altogether from instructions in situations "where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error." Neder, 527 U.S. at 17 . 2006Harmless error is found even when necessary elements are omitted altogether from instructions in situations “where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” Neder, 527 U.S. at 17 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Trombley
green
2 sentences2006In Trombley, we held that the trial court’s jury instruction on the issue of intent was harmless error. 174 Vt. at 462 , 807 A.2d at 405 . 2006In Trombley, we held that the trial court’s jury instruction on the issue of intent was harmless error. 174 Vt. at 462 , 807 A.2d at 405 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In re H.T. & M.L., Juveniles
green
1 sentence2026In In re H.T., we declined to reverse because we concluded that the error was harmless. 2020 VT 3, ¶ 27 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. James Anderson
green
2 sentences2024Accordingly, we do not view Austin as precluding defendant from challenging the State’s harmless-error claim here. 9 VT 40 , 202 Vt. 1 , 146 A.3d 876 . 2024Accordingly, we do not view Austin as precluding defendant from challenging the State’s harmless-error claim here. 9 VT 40 , 202 Vt. 1 , 146 A.3d 876 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Thomas Ferguson and Katherine A. Ferguson
neutral
1 sentence2024Ferguson, 2020 VT 39, ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
King v. Gorczyk
green
2 sentences2023King v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 34 , J 9, 175 Vt. 220 ; State v. Mott, 166 Vt. 188, 193 (1997); State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90 (1988) (noting that constitutional violations are subject to the harmless error rule). 2023King v. Gorczyk, 2003 VT 34 , J 9, 175 Vt. 220 ; State v. Mott, 166 Vt. 188, 193 (1997); State v. Hunt, 150 Vt. 483, 489-90 (1988) (noting that constitutional violations are subject to the harmless error rule). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Jackowski
green
1 sentence2023Under this standard, the court may find an “error harmless only if we can state a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jackowski, 2006 VT 119 , 4 8, 181 Vt. 73 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Matthew Webster
green
2 sentences2018"Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error." Webster , 2017 VT 98 , ¶ 24, --- Vt. ----, 179 A.3d 149 . 2018"Harmless error analysis requires the reviewing court to inquire if, absent the alleged error, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict regardless of the error." Webster , 2017 VT 98 , ¶ 24, --- Vt. ----, 179 A.3d 149 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re B.S. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Orange County Social Services Agency v. Lorenzo M. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Shannon P. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Delisle green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Provost green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Ramsey v. Coughlin green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Winbourne v. Eastern Air Lines green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Gokey green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Butts green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| United States v. Vernon Earl Walden green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Grant green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Delaware v. Van Arsdall green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Griffin v. California green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Howe green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.