harmless error in Indiana

2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1509-CR-1536 | July 6, 2016 Page 15 of 22 surprise on the State, we find that any error in the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence amounts to harmless error. [27] “Harmless error is an error that does not ‘affect the substantial rights of a party.’” Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind. 2002)).

2007Moreover, we do not find the fact that six shots were fired to be dispositive of a harmless error claim, in light of our Supreme Court’s observation in Littler: “The extent of Neal’s injuries does not necessarily disprove Philip’s claim of self defense.” Littler, 871 N.E.2d at 279 .

2018“Harmless error occurs ‘when the conviction is supported by such substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy the reviewing court that there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Id. (quoting Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009)).

2017“Harmless error occurs “when the conviction is supported by such substantial independent evidence of guilt as to satisfy the reviewing court that there is no substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the conviction.’ ” Id. (quoting Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009)).

2007Harmless error is an error that does not “ ‘affect the substantial rights of a party.’ ” Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 38, 36 (Ind.2002) (quoting Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind.1995)).

2002Harmless error is defined as an error that does not “affect the substantial rights of a party.” Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind.1995).

2023Waiver notwithstanding, we hold any error in failing to follow the procedure set forth in Indiana Code section 34-36- 1-6 is harmless. [48] Harmless error, by definition, is “an error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party.” Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (Ind. 2002).

2020Harmless error is “‘an error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party.’” Rosales v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1014, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (Ind. 2002)).

2020Randolph v. State, 802 N.E.2d 1008, 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

2018Randolph v. State, 802 N.E.2d 1008, 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2020Henson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. 1987); Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 92 (Ind. 1985), cert. denied (1986).

2009In Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 92 (Ind.1985), cert. denied, 4745 U.S. 1031 , 106 S.Ct. 1241 , 89 L.Ed.2d 349 (1986), our Supreme Court set out a five-part test to determine whether a Doyle violation is harmless: (1) the use to which the prosecution puts the post-arrest silence; (2) who elected to pursue the line of questioning; (8) the quantum of other evidence indicative of guilt; (4) the intensity and frequency of the reference; and (5) the availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions.

2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 225 (Ind. 2009) (“Harmless error is error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party . . . .”) (citation omitted).

2014For the proposition, Tice cites to a statement in Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 218 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied, specifically to Westlaw Headnote 13 of the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion,1 which states that “‘Harmless error’ is error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party given the error’s likely impact on the jury in light of other evidence presented at trial.

2019The harmless-error doctrine thus serves two key, interrelated functions: it "recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence," Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. at 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (citing United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225 , 230, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ), and it "promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error," id.

2019The harmless-error doctrine thus serves two key, interrelated functions: it "recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence," Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. at 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 (citing United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225 , 230, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) ), and it "promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error," id.

2020Harmless error is “an error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party.” Rosales v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1014, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (Ind. 2002)).

2020Harmless error is “‘an error that does not affect the substantial rights of a party.’” Rosales v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1014, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Lander v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (Ind. 2002)).

2017Nelson v. State, 792 N.E.2d 588, 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. [17] The State was required to present evidence Renteria’s license was suspended and he knew of the suspension.

2015Nelson v. State, 792 N.E.2d 588, 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.

2016When considering whether an error is harmless, we consider “the likely impact of the evidence on the jury.’” Id. (quoting Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 135 (Ind. 2005)).

2008Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind.2007) (quoting Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 135 (Ind.2005)).

2014See Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1058-59 (Ind.2011) (stating that Indiana courts will not reverse a conviction based on a harmless error).

2014See Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1058-59 (Ind. 2011) (stating that Indiana courts will not reverse a conviction based on a harmless error).

2018The basic premise of the harmless-error rule "holds that a conviction may stand when the error had no bearing on the outcome of the case." Id.

2018The basic premise of the harmless error rule is that “a conviction may stand when the error had no bearing on the outcome of the case.” Id.

2020Henson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. 1987); Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 92 (Ind. 1985), cert. denied (1986).

2001Henson, 514 N.E.2d at 1067 .

2025“A denial of the right to be present during all critical stages of the proceedings, like the right to counsel at a critical stage, is a constitutional right that is subject to a harmless error analysis.” Id. [30] We conclude that Minor has not carried his burden of establishing that the bailiff’s communication with the jury by replying “no” to a request for the bodycam footage while she was placing evidence in the jury room before deliberations had begun in earnest triggered a critical stage where he was required to be present and heard.

2002Hernandez relies on Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 492 (Ind.2001), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 122 S.Ct. 905 , -- L.Ed.2d -- (2002) which recognized "state constitutional protection for a defendant's right to be present when a jury makes a request for any additional guidance during deliberations." A denial of the right to be present during all critical stages of the proceedings, like the right to counsel at a critical stage, is a constitutional right that is subject to a harmless error analysis.

2018Morales v. State , 749 N.E.2d 1260 , 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

2002Morales v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1260, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1509-CR-1536 | July 6, 2016 Page 15 of 22 surprise on the State, we find that any error in the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence amounts to harmless error. [27] “Harmless error is an error that does not ‘affect the substantial rights of a party.’” Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind. 2002)).

2016When considering whether an error is harmless, we consider “the likely impact of the evidence on the jury.’” Id. (quoting Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 135 (Ind. 2005)).

2025Id. (citation omitted). [46] Gamble first contends that his statement to law enforcement provided the only evidence of a specific intent to rob Cruz.

2019Id. (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1974)). [26] Ron and Tina testified in detail concerning the home invasion, including the masked perpetrator’s intimate and specific knowledge of the nature, extent, and location of specific valuables.

2020However, “denial of this constitutional right is ‘subject to a harmless error analysis unless the deprivation, by its very nature, cannot be harmless.’” Hernandez, 761 N.E.2d at 849 (quoting Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 , 117 n.2 (1983)).

2017The right to the assistance of counsel is so essential that prejudice is presumed when there is actual or construction denial of the assistance of counsel; however, “denial of this constitutional right is' ‘subject to a harmless error analysis unless the deprivation, by its very nature, cannot be harmless.’ ” Id. (quoting Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 , 117-18 n.2, 104 S.Ct. 453 , 78 L.Ed.2d 267 (1983)).

2017However, as this court has previously noted, “the United States Supreme Court has held that invalid waivers of counsel are not subject to a harmless error analysis.” Bumbalough, 695 N.E.2d at 999 (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)).

2012Id.; see Bell v. State, 695 N.E.2d 997, 999 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (acknowledging that invalid waivers of counsel are not subject to a harmless error analysis) (citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988)).

2012“Harmless error occurs when the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt which satisfies the reviewing court that there is no likelihood that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.” Smock v. State, 766 N.E.2d 401, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

2005Id.

2015Thus, I can only conclude that the trial court’s decision to deny Hale’s motion was an abuse of discretion. 3 [4] The majority recognizes that, in Murphy v. State, our supreme court held that the deprivation of the right to depose witnesses was not subject to a harmless error analysis. 265 Ind. 116, 120-21 , 352 N.E.2d 479, 482-83 (1976).

2015Thus, I can only conclude that the trial court’s decision to deny Hale’s motion was an abuse of discretion. 3 [4] The majority recognizes that, in Murphy v. State, our supreme court held that the deprivation of the right to depose witnesses was not subject to a harmless error analysis. 265 Ind. 116, 120-21 , 352 N.E.2d 479, 482-83 (1976).

2015See Ind. State Highway Comm’n v. Ind. Civil Rights Comm’n, 424 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (applying the doctrine of harmless error in appellate review of an administrative decision). 2. [11] K.L. argues I.C. § 22-4-1-2 in its current form is unconstitutional as it deprives the applicant for unemployment benefits due process of law.

1984Swingle v. State Employees' Appeal Com'n., (1983) Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 178 ; Indiana State Highway Commission v. Indiana Civil Rights Commission, (1981) Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 1024 ; Department of Financial Institutions v. Colonial Bank & Trust Company, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 368 , 375 N.E.2d 285 .