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.
55 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. DiGuiliogreen2 sentences2025This test “is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.” State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla. 1986). 2024"The harmless error test . . . places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of 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). "[T]he harmless error test 'is not a sufficiency-of- 35 the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test'; instead, the 'fo | 22 | 48 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Johnson ; Ventura v. State , 29 So.3d 1086 , 1089 (Fla. 2010) (holding that the lower court applied the wrong harmless error analysis when it concluded that the detective's comments on defendant's silence were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt" (citation omitted) ); DiGuilio , 491 So.2d at 1139 (cautioning that the harmless error test is not "an overwhelming evidence test"); see also Cooper v. State , 43 So.3d 42 , 43 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that the harmless error test "is not a strong evidence test. 2018Johnson ; Ventura v. State , 29 So.3d 1086 , 1089 (Fla. 2010) (holding that the lower court applied the wrong harmless error analysis when it concluded that the detective's comments on defendant's silence were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt" (citation omitted) ); DiGuilio , 491 So.2d at 1139 (cautioning that the harmless error test is not "an overwhelming evidence test"); see also Cooper v. State , 43 So.3d 42 , 43 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that the harmless error test "is not a strong evidence test. | 6 | 6 |
Ventura v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Johnson ; Ventura v. State , 29 So.3d 1086 , 1089 (Fla. 2010) (holding that the lower court applied the wrong harmless error analysis when it concluded that the detective's comments on defendant's silence were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt" (citation omitted) ); DiGuilio , 491 So.2d at 1139 (cautioning that the harmless error test is not "an overwhelming evidence test"); see also Cooper v. State , 43 So.3d 42 , 43 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that the harmless error test "is not a strong evidence test. 2018Johnson ; Ventura v. State , 29 So.3d 1086 , 1089 (Fla. 2010) (holding that the lower court applied the wrong harmless error analysis when it concluded that the detective's comments on defendant's silence were "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt" (citation omitted) ); DiGuilio , 491 So.2d at 1139 (cautioning that the harmless error test is not "an overwhelming evidence test"); see also Cooper v. State , 43 So.3d 42 , 43 (Fla. 2010) (explaining that the harmless error test "is not a strong evidence test. | 4 | 6 |
McDuffie v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Harmless Error Analysis Finally, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless. "[T]he harmless error test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test." McDuffie , 970 So.2d at 328 (citation and internal marks omitted). 2019Harmless Error Analysis Finally, we cannot conclude that the error was harmless. "[T]he harmless error test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test." McDuffie , 970 So.2d at 328 (citation and internal marks omitted). | 3 | 6 |
Goodwin v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 544 (Fla.1999); see also Cooper v. State, 43 So.3d 42 (Fla.2010) (“As we have explained, the applicable test ‘is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidenee, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.’ Likewise, it is not a strong evidence test. 2006The focus is on the effect of the error on the trier of fact." *945 Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 541 (Fla. 1999) ( citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986)). | 2 | 2 |
Richard Summerall v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2024"The harmless error test . . . places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of 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). "[T]he harmless error test 'is not a sufficiency-of- 35 the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test'; instead, the 'fo | 1 | 1 |
Cuervo v. Stategreen1 sentence2019In Cuervo v. State, 967 So. 2d 155, 178 (Fla. 2007), the jury heard unimpeached and corroborated testimony that Cuervo had stabbed the victim, thus establishing his guilt to the charged offense of attempted first-degree murder with a weapon. | 1 | 1 |
Zack v. Stategreen1 sentence2018At the beginning of the case, the trial court told the jury that “[w]hat the lawyers say is not evidence, and you should not consider it as such.” And, again, just before the closing arguments, the trial court reminded the jurors “that what the attorneys say is not evidence, and it is not your instruction on the law.” See Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190, 1209 (Fla. 2005) (“Even if the 1We understand that the harmless error test “is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwh | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“It is well-established that the harmless error test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test’ but the ‘focus is on the effect of the error on the trier-of- *1198 fact.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986)); see also Qrtiz v. State, 654 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (determining that, despite the defendant’s “past connection to the drug world, the jury still could have believed that [the defendant] was not predi | 1 | 1 |
Chavez v. Stategreen1 sentence2010This is so despite the trial court’s cautionary instruction(s). 3 “The pertinent question in a harmless error analysis is not the sufficiency or quality of the remaining, properly admitted evidence; rather, it is ‘whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.’ ” Chavez v. State, 25 So.3d 49, 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1139 ); see also Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2010) (reiterating that the harmless error test is “not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more pro | 1 | 1 |
Arrieta-Rolon v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Finally, even if we found that the admission of the tape to be in error, we find the error to be harmless where the state has proven “beyond a reasonable doubt there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Arrieta-Rolon v. State, 36 So.3d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086 (Fla.2010) (rejecting an overwhelming evidence test for harmless error). | 1 | 1 |
Penalver v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Where multiple errors are discovered in the jury trial, a review of the cumulative effect of those errors is appropriate because "even though there was competent substantial evidence to support a verdict . . . and even though each of the alleged errors, standing alone, could be considered harmless, the cumulative effect of such errors [may be] such as to deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants in this state and this nation." Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005) (quoting Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991)); accord Pena | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stateyellow1 sentence2007Where multiple errors are discovered in the jury trial, a review of the cumulative effect of those errors is appropriate because "even though there was competent substantial evidence to support a verdict . . . and even though each of the alleged errors, standing alone, could be considered harmless, the cumulative effect of such errors [may be] such as to deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants in this state and this nation." Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005) (quoting Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991)); accord Pena | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Where multiple errors are discovered in the jury trial, a review of the cumulative effect of those errors is appropriate because "even though there was competent substantial evidence to support a verdict . . . and even though each of the alleged errors, standing alone, could be considered harmless, the cumulative effect of such errors [may be] such as to deny to defendant the fair and impartial trial that is the inalienable right of all litigants in this state and this nation." Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 202 (Fla.2005) (quoting Jackson v. State, 575 So.2d 181, 189 (Fla.1991)); accord Pena | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jahmahree Daniel v. State
green
2 sentences2019Daniel , 238 So. 3d at 1289 . 2019Daniel , 238 So. 3d at 1289 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Patrick Albert Evans v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2018Evans , 177 So.3d at 1238 . 2018Evans v. State , 177 So.3d 1219 , 1238 (Fla. 2015). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gore v. State
green
1 sentence2018As we have repeatedly stressed, the harmless error test "is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable *312 than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test" but the "focus is on the effect of the error on the trier-of-fact." Id. at 1139 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hill v. State
neutral
1 sentence2006State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Hill v. State, 616 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 624 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1993). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2004NOTES [1] Section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (2002). [2] In Williams v. State, 863 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2003), the supreme court instructed that the test for harmful error is not a(1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) correct result, (3) "not clearly wrong," (4) substantial evidence, (4) "more probable than not, (5) clear and convincing, or even (6) an overwhelming evidence test." Instead, the focus is on the effect of the error on the trier of fact. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence1988Although it is tempting to weigh the evidence presented *394 at trial, and conclude that "the overwhelming evidence" allows an affirmance of appellant's conviction, the DiGuilio harmless error test "is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence ... a substantial evidence ... or even an overwhelming evidence test." 507 So.2d at 1075 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Long v. State
green
1 sentence1987In Long v. State, 494 So.2d 213 (Fla. 1986), the supreme court quoted from State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), in repeating the test to be applied in making a harmless error analysis: The test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.