Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...error analysis be applied to prosecutorial comments on failure to testify. Way, Trafficante, and Gordon, however, are another matter because, after Rowe issued, the legislature enacted chapter 19554, section 309, Laws of Florida (1939), codified as section 924.33 (1941 and thereafter). [7] Section 924.33 *1134 differs from section 54.23 in two significant respects....

...Second, it explicitly provides that there shall be no presumption that errors are reversible unless it can be shown that they are harmful. Thus, Way, Trafficante, and Gordon, which purport to rely on legislative intent, are directly contrary to legislative intent as expressed in the plain words of section 924.33. [8] Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...The suggestion is made that it is wise public policy to hold that comments on failure to testify and post-arrest silence are per se reversible error. This Court is not the forum for a debate on wise public policy. The responsible branch of government has already established the public policy through section 924.33 that appellate courts will not reverse trial court judgments unless it is determined on the record that harmful error has occurred....

...Further, at least indirectly, it also highlighted for the jury the fact that DiGuilio was not testifying at trial and still had offered no plausible explanation. Under those circumstances and on this record, we conclude that the error was not harmless and constituted reversible error. § 924.33, Fla....

...554, 10 So. 822 (1892); Miller v. State, 15 Fla. 577 (1876); Barber v. State, 13 Fla. 675 (1871). [6] Originally enacted by chapter 6223, § 1, Laws of Florida (1911), currently codified as section 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1985). [7] The statute reads: 924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...hat error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. [8] There is no reference in Way, Trafficante, or Gordon to section 924.33. A review of the briefs filed in these cases shows that the state did not rely on, or even recognize the existence of, section 924.33....

...ilure to testify; and, in Gordon, that the issue had not been preserved and there was no comment on failure to testify. In a petition for rehearing on Way, which we denied, the statute untimely sought rehearing and reargument on the applicability of section 924.33....

...[9] In this connection, see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), where the Court recognized that Congress and the fifty states had the authority to enact harmless error statutes or rules, and had done so. Note, also, that, although section 924.33 was enacted prior to Chapman, it is consistent with Chapman....

...oceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...ctions were warranted materially hindered the defendant's trial preparation or strategy. We explained in DiGuilio that a defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error. This right has been recognized by the legislature in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), which provides that harmless error analysis is applicable to all judgments....

...per se reversal rule is not warranted in this context. It also leads us to agree with the State that continued application of the per se reversal rule to all Richardson violations would have the effect of "elevating form over substance," contrary to section 924.33....

...State, 367 So.2d 1020, 1022 (court must inquire as to whether the discovery violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and what effect the violation may have had on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial). [3] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...See McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 927 (“[B]road institutional concerns militate against increasing the number of errors deemed harmless.”). - 46 -  In DiGuilio, we addressed the relevant statutory authority, and explained why section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981), applied as opposed to section 59.041. See 491 So. 2d at 1133-34. Section 924.33 provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. This section is part of chapter 924, which is titled “Criminal Appeals and Collateral Review.” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003). The DiGuilio Court stated that section 924.33 applied because that statute: (1) applies to all judgments regardless of the type of error involved; and (2) explicitly provides that there shall be no presumption that errors are reversible unless it can be shown that they are harmful. See 491 So. 2d at 1133-34. Although section 59.041 did not apply in DiGuilio, the differences between this section and section 924.33 are not such as to render DiGuilio’s analysis inapposite....

...A judgment will not be reversed unless the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Padgett v. State, 84 Fla. 590, 94 So. 865 (1922); Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902). This long standing decisional rule has also been enacted as a statute. § 924.33, Fla....

...In other words, to have proven one case was to have proven the other. After examination of the entire record it does not appear that this error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, the judgment should not be reversed upon this ground. § 924.33, Fla....

...After examining the entire record, we conclude that the one improper question allowed by the trial court relating to defendant's possession of a gun, other than the murder weapon, almost two months after the crime and for which there was no curative instruction, was harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...It is because of this that we have on occasions reviewed highly prejudicial remarks even though no objection was made at the trial. The Attorney General concedes that comments of the type here involved should be discouraged. We are asked, however, to disregard the errors as harmless. Sections 54.23 and 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ROBERTS, J., dissents in part. ROBERTS, Justice (dissenting in part). I agree with all of the opinion by Mr. Justice THORNAL except his conclusion that the judgment should be reversed because of the improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney. Sec. 924.33, Fla....

...s remarks, prevented the appellant from having a fair and impartial consideration of the question of whether or not the jury should recommend mercy." And, in the opinion of the writer, the remarks complained of, if error, were harmless error under §§ 924.33 and 54.23, supra....

...t the improper remarks could not have influenced the jury, one way or the other, in its decision in this respect. Failing to see how the improper remarks in question could possibly have "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant", § 924.33, supra, insofar as the jury's decision against recommending mercy is concerned, I would hold the improper remarks, and the failure of the trial judge on his own initiative to strike them from the consideration of the jury, to be harmless error....

...But when they do not and when, as here, the evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming and no extenuating facts or circumstances that might have appealed to the jury in the exercise of their discretion in this respect appear in the record, the appellate court should not hesitate to apply the harmless error statutes, §§ 924.33 and 54.23, supra, in upholding convictions of murder in the first degree without recommendation, as against a contention that the jury was prejudicially influenced against recommending mercy by the error complained of....

...e has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove knowledge may be given by the witness himself. Clearly Beaudoin's statement was inadmissible. This error was not fundamental, however, and is therefore subject to harmless error analysis. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...o judgment should be reversed unless we are of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. It should not be presumed that error injuriously affects the substantial rights of the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; cf....

...Accordingly, we approve the result reached by the district court below. It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The district court's certified question encompasses that court's recognition of sections 59.041 and 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Section 924.33 provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...der in the first degree (thereby committing the crime of conspiracy) with the understanding that the means of accomplishing the unlawful homicide would be determined at a later date. The error of which Defendant complains was harmless and Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...NOTES [1] Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. [2] U.S.Const. Amend. IV. [3] Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 So. 768 (1889); Walden v. State, 319 So.2d 51 (Fla.App. 1975); Shelby v. State, 301 So.2d 461 (Fla.App. 1974); Knee v. State, 294 So.2d 411 (Fla.App. 1974). [4] Section 924.33 Florida Statutes....

...State, 348 So.2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Ennis v. State, 300 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). This error requires a reversal of the conviction and a new trial if the error prejudiced the defendant such that his substantive rights were violated. See Ennis, 300 So.2d at 328; § 924.33, Fla....

...s argument is unavailing because surely the witness' response to the prosecutor's *645 question made harmless any such error. That response was that the witness had not heard of any earlier incident involving appellant's shooting another person. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ra, constitutes a necessarily included offense; however, this Court in DeLaine, supra, applied the harmless error statute, explicitly opining: "It is apparent that we have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: "`No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, *439 after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...den., 279 So.2d 308. [12] 287 So.2d 138 (Fla.App. 1973); see also Clements v. State, 284 So.2d 700 (Fla.App. 1973), cert. den., 294 So.2d 654. [13] 291 So.2d 617 (Fla.App. 1974). [14] 297 So.2d 617 (Fla.App. 1974). [15] 299 So.2d 126 (Fla.App. 1974). [16] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...[2] The materiality requirement set forth in Brady was further refined in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and United States v. Bagley, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (1985). [3] In Richardson we also took note of Florida's harmless error statute, § 924.33, Fla....

...In answer to appellant's arguments assailing the convictions imposed, we respond that a judgment will not be reversed, unless the error of the evidence's admission was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. Prejudice will not be presumed. Section 924.33, Fla....

...her crimes is so minor that it is unlikely that the defendant was prejudiced, or the evidence of guilt so strong that it is improbable that a contrary result would be reached." 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Section 233 (Supp. 1968). Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A....

...in conjunction with the entire record we believe there is no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the improper evidence been excluded. Therefore upon consideration of the above discussed case law, and Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A., we find that although it was error to admit the testimony in question, this error was not harmfully prejudicial to defendant and did not deny him a fair trial....

...In Hand v. State, supra , we noted: "The refusal by the trial courts so to charge in the instant consolidated cases was not harmless error." (p. 103) It is apparent that we have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...State, 18 Fla. 481. * * *" Section 932.20, F.S.A., provides: "No person whose opinions are such as to preclude him from finding any defendant guilty of an offense punishable with death shall be allowed to serve as a juror on the trial of any capital case." Section 924.33, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The record shows Appellant, in the presence of his attorney, later confessed and admitted his guilt at trial. It can be argued that the later confession rendered the admission into evidence of the improper first confession of no consequence and excuses it under Florida's harmless error statute, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: "924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...I must respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority in this case in that I do not conclude, as does the majority, that the introduction of the first statement made by the defendant, over objection, constitutes harmless error within the purview or intent of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...I dissent because the Trotter per se error rule has four deficiencies: (1) it lacks any adequate constitutional or statutory basis; (2) it ignores one of the primary purposes of peremptory challenges; (3) it is contrary to the presumption of juror impartiality; and (4) it violates section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2003), which requires the application of a harmless error standard....

...ocedural tools of no constitutional dimension that are designed to help the State fulfill its constitutional duty of providing fair and impartial juries to all parties. [18] And, because peremptory challenges are of no constitutional dimension, *107 section 924.33, as well as our precedent, require application of the harmless error standard of review....

...is contrary to our own precedent. Because peremptory challenges are only a statutory right given to help secure the constitutional right to a fair trial by jury, we are bound to apply a harmless error standard. The harmless error rule as codified in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2003), and as applied by our own precedent dictates this result. This Court interpreted section 924.33 in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1134 (Fla.1986), stating: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...To do so, however, we are obligated to perform a reasoned analysis which shows that this is true, and that, for constitutional reasons, we must override the legislative decision. (Original emphasis and footnote omitted; emphasis added.) In light of section 924.33, our statements in DiGuilio, and our historical application of the harmless error rule, I see no constitutional reason that supports a per se reversal rule in general or as applied in this case....

...Because there is no federal constitutional right to peremptory challenges and because this Court's own precedent makes it clear that these challenges are not of a constitutional dimension, to require per se reversal in a case where a party receives what the constitution requires violates section 924.33 as interpreted by this Court in DiGuilio....

...ieve we are bound to modify the per se reversal rule that this Court has interpreted Trotter to require. As we acknowledged in DiGuilio, absent a legitimate constitutional reason to override the legislative codification of the harmless error rule in section 924.33, we must require that a defendant show actual harm in order for a conviction to be reversed....

...the second count. Brooks v. U.S., 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699; State v. Hammond, 188 N.C. 602, 125 S.E. 402. Under the circumstances the alleged error with reference to count two could at most be harmless error within the intendment of Section 924.33, F.S.A....

...In my opinion Frazier represents the correct application. The harmless error doctrine is based on the proposition that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not necessarily an errorless one. The defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the error. See § 924.33, Fla....

...neous felony murder instruction. If evidence of either theory is sufficient to convict, and the record supported the correctly charged theory, a jury's reliance on the other erroneously charged theory cannot be said to have prejudiced the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977), provides an appellate court shall not presume that an error injuriously affected substantial rights of a defendant....

...unless through rejecting the qualified person, the necessity of accepting an objectionable juror has been created. It should be enough if it appears that the case has been tried by an impartial jury. Leaptrot v. State, 51 Fla. 57, 40 So. 616 (1906). Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...ho made it. The point appears to be well taken but, in view of an abundance of other evidence of the physical surroundings at the time and place in question, the admission of said pictorial exhibit is held to be harmless. See Fla. Stat. § 54.23 and § 924.33, F.S.A....

...As for my observations about the Supreme Court's decision in Murray, there are four which I wish to express: 1. It seems to me that the "harmless error" principle is a thread that now must visibly permeate every aspect of criminal prosecution. Very little is said about the existing harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), in our opinions, although the Supreme Court of Florida, in Jones v....

...68, "As a general rule, specific acts, whether of good conduct or bad conduct, cannot be shown in rebuttal of evidence as to character." We have followed the general rule in several cases. See Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., reads as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...It is my view that Florida's time honored harmless error rule and statute mandates affirmance of the judgment. When lead footed justice reaches the end of its long and tedious journey, it should not be caused to falter upon an imagined barricade and required to repeat the trip. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981); Jenkins v....

...Peoples Bank of Sanford, 73 Fla. 1165, 1174, 75 So. 848, 852 (1917). Even if the hospital records in this case were improperly admitted, their admission is harmless at best and, therefore, should not serve as a basis for a reversal and a new trial in this case. See § 924.33, Fla....

...The Police Chief's alleged statement to Franklin, although hearsay, would fall under the "state of mind" exception insofar as it bears on the question of his bias, motive, and intent. Cf., Allen Morris Co. v. McNally, Fla.App.3d 1974, 305 So.2d 79. We are well aware of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, the harmless error statute, but we cannot agree that the errors here were harmless....

...1968, 212 So.2d 95. We agree with the state's contention that it is a long-settled rule that a criminal case will not be reversed where the evidence of guilt is ample, unless substantial rights have been violated and injury therefrom is clearly demonstrated, § 924.33 Fla....

...Ergo, we conclude the trial court erred in the admission of the hearsay testimony of the sexual counselor. Having determined that error was committed below, we must consider whether the error requires reversal or falls into the category of harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...In other words, the court inquires generally, whether, but for the erroneous ruling, it is likely that the result below would be different," Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla. 1981), and "it shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...e District Court's holding as to these offenses was in error. This determination, however, does not dispose of the case. As pointed out in Delaine v. State: [7] "[W]e have not foreclosed, under appropriate circumstances, the invocation of Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., which reads: `No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.'" We must, therefore, determine whether this error is harmless or reversible error. While the District Court states that it has not overlooked § 924.33, in deciding that the failure to instruct as to assault was reversible error, the District Court failed to reach its decision "after an examination of all the appeal papers......

...tantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, we feel that the cause should be remanded for a new trial, with appropriate instructions given." While it may be difficult to determine if an error is injurious in a given case, that is what is required by § 924.33....

...ficer with a knife, we are compelled to the opinion that these errors were not harmless but injuriously affected the substantial right of the appellant to be tried only on admissible evidence material to proper issues in the cause. See § 59.041 and § 924.33, Fla....

...There are additional reasons why the introduction of the defendant's pre-arrest statements regarding the cigarettes, "clothes", and "stuff" should not be considered reversible error even assuming that Miranda warnings were required. These statements were so inconsequential that their admission, if error, was harmless. See Section 924.33, F.S....

...d and that it shall be kept together in some convenient place till it agrees on a verdict or is discharged. Section 919.02, F.S.A., provides for separation of the jury for a definite period. Section 920.05, F.S.A., details grounds for new trial, and Section 924.33, F.S.A., provides that no judgment shall be reversed for error unless it is shown to have injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...In the statute twelve grounds authorizing the setting aside of a verdict or arresting a judgment are given. The twelfth ground provides: "The court shall * * * grant a new trial when from any other cause not due to his own fault the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial * * *." But section 924.33, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., which must necessarily be considered in connection with the foregoing statute, contains the plain mandate that "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the ap...

...t error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." How can it be said, in view of the unequivocal provisions of section 924.33, that merely because the trial judge allowed the jurors to separate for the night the substantial rights of the defendant were thereby prejudiced to such an extent as to require the judgment to be set aside and a new trial awarded? Whe...

...on of the trial jury. I presume that anyone obliged to suffer imprisonment might feel that he had some ground for complaint in that the confinement and restraint operated to deprive him of his right to liberty; but this is not the type of thing that section 924.33 aims at when it says that "No judgment shall be reversed unless * * * error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant", and "It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantia...

...to give the third degree murder charge. Under these facts, it can hardly be argued that appellant should be precluded from raising the trial court's failure to give the requested charge. The state next argues that the harmless error rule applies. (F.S. 924.33) Several decisions may be cited which apply the harmless error rule to the failure of the trial court to instruct on lesser included offenses....

...Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137. We find no evidence that the error, if any, was fundamental; in fact, we find no evidence that the error, if any, was other than harmless. Therefore, it could not present a basis for reversal even if it were properly before this Court. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A.; North v....

...NOTES [1] Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968). [2] State v. Wilson, 276 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1973); State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1972); DeLaine v. State, 262 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1972). [3] Rule 1.510, Cr.P.R., now renumbered Rule 3.510, Cr.P.R. [4] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; Sloan v....

...few minutes after defendant departed rendered mother's testimony of child's statements admissible as res gestae). However, we have determined after a thorough review of the record that this error in admitting the counselor's testimony was harmless. § 924.33, Fla....

...ears to be in conformity with the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Florida in Cumbie v. State, 345 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1977), Case No. 49,134 not yet reported. The effect of the opinion is to explicitly declare the harmless error statute (F.S. 924.33) and doctrine ( Urga v....

...rd discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant. * * * Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...her of the defendants' constitutional rights were violated by the admission of the brief exchange between Galasso and Mr. Brumley. The facts before us in the instant case clearly appear to call for a timely application of our harmless error statute. Section 924.33 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...[1] The voluntary, non-coerced statements of the accused, after he was warned of his right to remain silent and to counsel and had waived those rights, cannot be said to have been compelled so as to invoke the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. [2] F.S. § 924.33.

...sailor and flee "north." In any event, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty in the absence of the claimed error, and, thus, assuming it was error to admit the testimony, the error was harmless. § 924.33, Fla....

...rocedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." and Section 924.33 entitled "When judgment not to be reversed or modified." provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...Even if it be concluded that the procedure followed by the State was erroneous because it lacked specificity as to the action being taken, a review of the record does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that such error "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." See F.S., Section 924.33, F.S.A....

...Further, if error had been committed it would merely be harmless, as the proposed testimony was of a cumulative nature. Groover v. Hammond, 73 Fla. 1155, 75 So. 857; Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So. 338; BCK Land, Inc. v. Cook, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So.2d 717; § 924.33, Fla....

...kes the jury the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, including the reasonableness, probability and credibility of a defendant. Barnes v. State, 93 So.2d 863 (Fla. 1957). The State asks us to consider the error, if any, to be harmless under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977), but it is difficult to characterize the cumulative effect of the improper testimony of four police officers as harmless....

...Ordinarily the remedy for an error in the exclusion of relevant evidence is a reversal for a new trial. Walker v. Willis, 72 Fla. 119, 72 So. 517 (1916). But here the state argues that even if the exclusion of the testimony was error it was not prejudicial error within the meaning of § 924.33, Fla....

...1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [5] § 924.33, Fla....

...The Court denied defendants' motions for mistrial based upon such incidents. It is elementary that it is not every error that may be committed in the trial of a criminal case that will provide the basis for a reversal of the judgment; such error must be fundamental and prejudicial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...s added) The issue of the voluntariness of the confession has been waived and, further, its admission could not have been harmful. Coggins v. State, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 400; Boyd v. State, Fla. App. 1964, 162 So.2d 271; Simpson v. State, supra; § 924.33, Fla....

...Dupree v. State, 125 Fla. 58, 169 So. 600 (1936); Ho Yin Wong v. State, 359 So.2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1978); Durcan v. State, 350 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); § 924.33, Fla....

...State, 1930, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1. On oral argument the state admitted that the court erred in limiting the cross examination of these three eye witnesses by the appellant but took the position that such error was harmless and under Florida Statute § 924.33, F.S.A., did not require a reversal....

...However, having moved for severance which motion was granted, he was tried separately, was convicted of the crimes charged, was adjudicated guilty by the trial court and was sentenced to a term of six months to three years in the state prison. [2] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides: "When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...dicial, harmless error. Jordan, ___ So.2d at ___, 23 FLW at D2132-33. As to the latter ground, which we find particularly persuasive, we emphasize that the Reform Act has—we think, quite salutarily [3] —rendered the general harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1997); see § 59.041, Fla.Stat....

...rder to be a ground for reversal an error in the rejection or admission of testimony must be shown to have been prejudicial to the defendant. As early as 1911 we had a "harmless error" statute. Section 54.23, Fla. Stat. The 1939 Criminal Code, in *8 § 924.33, Fla....

...ch the legality of the trial. The appellant has not demonstrated that the admission of the evidence, if error, was harmful in any manner, and the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, in keeping with the requirements of F.S.A. § 54.23 and § 924.33, and the decisions in Kelly v....

...However our review leaves us convinced that the error was harmless according to applicable criteria and that no purpose would be served by remanding for a hearing. Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1981) and Recinos v. State, 420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1984)....

...cle identification, is of such quality that the jury could have found, as it did, that appellant was guilty as charged in the information. Accordingly, we conclude that in light of the record the complained-of error is considered to be harmless. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes; Butler v....

...with the psychiatrists, and under Fla. Stat. § 90.242, F.S.A. his conversations with the psychiatrists were privileged. Cf., Schetter v. Schetter, Fla. App. 1970, 239 So.2d 51. Moreover, any error in the court's ruling was harmless under Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...o prejudicial inferences on the part of the jury. There being no reasonable basis upon which a different verdict could have been reached, if admission of the shotgun was error, it was harmless. See Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 924.33, Fla....

...roduction of the confession into evidence at trial. Furthermore, it appears that there was other sufficient competent evidence, disregarding the confession, to sustain the finding of guilt and the error, if any, was at worst harmless. See Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A.; Coggins v....

...staken belief that such an error is, or was at one time, per se reversible. The supreme court, however, has never held that it is. In the absence of such a declaration by the supreme court, all judgments are subject to a harmless error analysis. See § 924.33, Fla....

...The defendant failed to properly object to the procedure he complains of as to discovery pertaining to the tape recordings and he failed to demonstrate how any of the rulings or procedures in the trial court injuriously affected his substantial rights. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 F.S.A....

...The prosecuting witness testified to the same effect, and her testimony in combination with other competent evidence convincingly supports the conclusion that the defendant did perform the acts in question with the described results. See Fla. Stat. § 54.23 F.S.A.; [2] Fla. Stat. § 924.33 F.S.A....

...Adams and he, the appellant, would pay off. Under the facts shown in this case if it was error for the witness to identify Mr. Adams as the man who had been convicted the day before, it was not harmful and was not prejudicial in any manner to the appellant. F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...Moreover, the defendant and 3 alibi witnesses testified regarding principally the matter of identification, so that the question was thoroughly gone into and the incidental, though unfortunate, references to "mug shots" are well within the harmless error statute (§ 924.33)....

...The appellant received the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and there is nothing in the record to arouse suspicion as to the fairness or integrity of the eminent trial judge. The other assignments of error have been considered and are without merit. F.S.A. § 924.33....

...In this particular case, because the defendant practically admitted that he was the perpetrator of the robbery and his sole defense was that of voluntary intoxication, we might well have held the admission of the cash and handgun into evidence over his objection constituted harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...uestion of great public importance as to whether a comment on the right to silence, a constitutional violation, was per se reversible error. At the time DiGuilio was decided section 924.051(7) was not in effect; however, we then had, and still have, section 924.33, which provided: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. The DiGuilio court observed: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...mpting the State" to present evidence of appellant's tattoos and scars. Asbury, 765 So.2d at 965. Finally, the lower court's actions cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when reviewed in the context of their significance at trial. See § 924.33, Fla....

...mless error. As an appellate court, we are permitted to reverse a judgment only if "after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." § 59.04, Fla. Stat. (1985); see also § 924.33, Fla....

...However, because we conclude that appellant is not entitled to a new trial even if Coney applies, we find it unnecessary to undertake the task of prognostication in an effort to divine the court's intent regarding those cases to which Coney will apply. Instead, we assume, for purposes of this opinion, that Coney does apply. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1995), mandates that "[n]o [criminal] judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The State filed a timely appeal, and in the appeal challenges the departure reasons set forth in the transcript. The delay in filing must be viewed as harmless error. See Weiss, 720 So.2d at 1115. The Criminal Appeal Reform Act has—we think, quite salutarily—rendered the general harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1997); see § 59.041, Fla....

...The hospital clerk's testimony regarding a telephone conversation with a Mrs. Cox should have been excluded as inadmissible hearsay. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1983). Nevertheless, the admission of this hearsay testimony was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt. See § 924.33, Fla....

...very criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Cr.P.R. 1.020. It is apparent to us that such rules should be considered by an appellate court in conjunction with the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides that rulings or proceedings in criminal cases that are not prejudicial or harmful do not require reversal....

...conference or to be present *912 when the court answered the jury's questions during deliberations. The questions were legal definitions. Both counsel consented to the answers and we find no harmful error. Meek v. State, 487 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1986); section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1985); accord Stano v....

...epting the same, it is our view that insofar as the failure to ascertain the factual basis for a negotiated guilty plea in a state prosecution may constitute error, such error may be harmless error and, if so, cannot serve as the basis for reversal. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...e verdict. A statute provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. § 924.33, Fla....

...*899 Thus we agree with petitioner that evidence of his refusal to take a breathalyzer test is inadmissible. The trial court sustained his objections, however, and an examination of the record does not indicate that the substantial rights of the petitioner were so affected that a mistrial should have been declared. F.S.A. § 924.33....

...Evidence of his guilt of kidnapmurder was overwhelming, and any premeditation to murder arose in the course of the kidnapping. In these circumstances the erroneous charge could not have seriously misled the jury from its sworn duty to try the accused on the charges made by the indictment. See § 924.33, F.S....

the substantial rights of the appellant. See Section 924.33, Fla. Stats. 1941 (F.S.A.). The evidence shows

...inion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." (Emphasis supplied.) And F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...The error in the instant case was not harmless; I, therefore, concur. I write, however, to express my understanding of Ciccarelli v. State, 531 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1988), cited by the majority, and our responsibilities as judicial officers in reviewing criminal proceedings which may contain errors which are harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, states, When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...Since the trial judge, sitting without a jury, stated that he based his findings exclusively upon such evidence and that he disregarded the challenged evidence, the error, if any, in the admission of such evidence was harmless. Section 54.23 [1] and 924.33, [2] Fla.Stats., F.S.A.; Butler v....

...[2] "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." Section 924.33, Fla.Stats., F.S.A....

...e manager's description. The store manager gave his description to police after perceiving Miles and the incident that occurred moments before. In light of the error, we turn to the issue of whether the error was harmless and we conclude that it is. Section 924.33, Florida Statues, provides that no judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...Rather, she testified that Brooke told her mother. As appellant's counsel only asked Brooke at hearing whether he discussed it with the victim and never inquired about conversations with the mother, appellant has not shown that the State used false testimony. [3] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...prior tainted police line-up and the trial court could have found *219 that line-up identification was based upon observation of the crime and not the tainted police line-up. Alternatively, the introduction of such identification was harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...e 3.200 constitutes reversible error. Under both the statutory law and case law of this state, a judgment shall not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. § 924.33, Fla....

...regarded as no more than a poor choice of words. In any case, we are convinced, upon a review of the entire record, that the statement could not have affected the jury's determination in any way. We are admonished by the Harmless Error Statute, F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A., and by common sense that otherwise proper trials are not to be reversed merely because an academic analysis of a single statement reveals a defect in rhetoric....

...The fact that this witness was in the pretrial program was relevant to the credibility of this witness, *1360 and the exclusion of such testimony was error. Now we must consider whether the judgment should nevertheless be affirmed under the harmless-error rule. § 924.33, Fla....

...rtheless we have reviewed all of the testimony presented to the jury and we fail to find that appellant's conviction resulted in a miscarriage of justice or that the ends of justice dictate the granting of a new trial within the scope and meaning of § 924.33, Fla....

...s counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against a sentence of death." Rule 3.780(c) was designed to comport with this statute and should not be raised to the level of a substantive right which outweighs the statutory mandate. Rather, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1993), which codifies the harmless error rule, should apply to an error in the order of argument in the sentencing phase of a capital case. Section 924.33 specifies that "[n]o judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." A...

...We find error in the lower court's admission of collateral crime evidence during the course of Steward's trial on the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of 16. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, however, we find such error to have been harmless, and affirm Steward's conviction and sentence. Section 924.33, Fla....

...n separate Rule 3.490 under Section XI pertaining to The Verdict. [7] On at least five recent occasions, the Fifth District has certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Can an appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), to the failure of a trial court to give the jury instruction required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) if the appellant's guilt is clearly established and the appellate court determines the error could not have affected the verdict?" See Meeks v....

...Were we free to do so, we would hold the failure to give the instruction harmless error because the evidence against appellant is strong and clear. However, Tascano *473 leaves us in doubt as to the applicability of the traditional harmless error rule set forth in sections 59.041 and 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979). As we did in Gee v. State, 400 So.2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we therefore certify to the Supreme Court the following question which we deem to be of great public importance: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLATE...

...uries cannot properly weigh and evaluate conclusions based on different standards of rigor." 660 So.2d at 262. I do not read the mere quoting of this scientific observation, however, as an abandonment of the statutorily required harmless error test. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1995), provides: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...to presume error in the admission of DNA evidence from the kind of observation quoted by the court in Hayes. Until and unless the court explicitly requires a per se rule on DNA evidence, I believe we are required to apply the harmless error test of section 924.33....

...error occurred in the trial court. Prejudicial error is defined in § 924.051(1)(a) as "an error in the trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." When the above provisions became effective in 1996, we already had, and still have § 924.33, which provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...ons). Generally, a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed on review in the absence of an abuse of discretion and injury to substantial rights of the appellant. Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 924.33, Fla....

...credibility of which was in no way reflected upon except for the fact that the Negroes were admittedly accomplices, certainly pointed to the conclusion of guilt reached by the jury. In this case it is entirely appropriate to apply the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...ss in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed." *328 In addition, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...1976); Ackerman v. State, 372 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also Germany v. Estelle, 639 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.1981). Second, Harrell may prove that the error injuriously affected a substantial right protected by state law, also shifting the burden to the State. Section 924.33, Fla....

...[4] For the same reasons that we find no violation of the federal right to due process, we also find no violation of a substantial right protected by state law. We do find, consistent with Florida law, that Harrell has also failed to prove reversible error under Section 924.33, Fla....

...at error may have contributed to accused's conviction to constitutional error), the standard of trial fairness applies, see, e.g., United States v. Ford, supra , and the burden remains on the defendant to prove the error resulted in an unfair trial, § 924.33, Fla....

...[2] Chapman, supra, involves an erroneous evidentiary ruling. If federal constitutional error can be proved, then we assume that the reasonable doubt standard of Chapman, supra applies to cases such as this where the evidentiary ruling was correct, but where the objects of that ruling remained in court. [3] § 924.33, Fla....

...We do not feel that the evidence as to the crime under Count 3, even though improper and not qualified under Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) in the trial under Counts 1 and 2, was of such moment as to require reversal of the conviction under Counts 1, and 2, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

appellate court is “obliged to affirm that judgment”); § 924.33, Florida Statutes (2009) (“No judgment shall be

...State, supra, allowed the unconstitutionality of Section 800.01 to be raised at the appellate level even though it was not raised at trial. Somewhat by way of postscript we ask ourselves if this court, consistent with its judicial obligation, could somehow term the error here outlined as harmless under Section 924.33, F.S....

...1972, 269 So.2d 692, or that failure to reach fruition is of the essence of an attempt to commit a crime. So until the rule is changed by the court of last resort, like it or not, we are all obliged to follow it. Next we consider whether the harmless error statute, § 924.33, F.S....

...From our examination of the record, we find that where merited, the trial judge gave a curative instruction. We do not find that Lewis's substantial rights were affected or that any prosecutorial comments deprived him of a fair trial. See Henry v. State, 290 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); § 924.33, Fla....

...State, 717 So.2d 462, 471 (Fla.1998). “If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). Additionally, under section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2009), “[n]o judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...eory of duress. In these circumstances the court's failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirements of section 90.803(23) was harmless, and does not require reversal as it did not affect appellant's substantial rights. See Salter, supra ; section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...ceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration.' Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz., F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...The doctor clearly was not a "custodian or other qualified witness" as contemplated in Florida's Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Fla. Stat. § 92.36, which was controlling at this trial. However, given the totality of the evidence, this error was harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33....

...Further, again paraphrasing Chapman, we can safely say, in my view, that the error did not contribute to the defendant's conviction. Hopefully, the Supreme Court, on review of this case, will adopt Chapman. As I pointed out in the Boatwright opinion, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), exists as this state's harmless error statute....

...Under these circumstances, the court's failure specifically to include the intent element in the definition of the greater crime — of which the defendant was impliedly acquitted [4] — was not only not fundamental error, but was affirmatively shown to have been harmless. [5] Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); James v....

...The defendants' third contention is that they are entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks or comments made by the prosecutor throughout the proceedings. We agree with the state that these comments did not result in reversible error. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat....

...at an error has been committed does not necessarily require reversal on appeal. Smith v. State, 217 So.2d 359, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Furthermore, "[i]t shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." § 924.33, Fla....

...Constitutional error may not be deemed harmless if a reasonable possibility exists that the error may have contributed to the conviction or that the error may not be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Nowlin v. State, 346 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 1977), citing Chapman v. California, supra ; see § 924.33, Fla....

...The error clearly did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of appellant. The other points on appeal have been carefully considered and are found by us to be without merit. Affirmed. SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Florida Statute 919.16. [2] Florida Statute 924.33....

...review depends on the nature of the ruling in each case."). We also note that the state has not even attempted to show how it might have been prejudiced by the suppression of the mere speck of defendant's statements occurring after his inquiry. See § 924.33, Fla....

...s, except in cases otherwise provided by law." [2] Cox v. State, (Fla.App. 1966) 192 So.2d 11, 13. [3] Porter v. State, (Fla. 1964) 160 So.2d 104, 110. [4] See also Gates v. State (Fla.App. 1967) 201 So.2d 786, opinion filed August 8, 1967. [5] F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Also to be considered is section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987), the chapter entitled "Appeals." This latter section is much like the former and states: 924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

...nguage employed in Lomax intimates that the harmless error doctrine cannot be invoked whenever there has been a failure to instruct on any lesser-included offense, it is disapproved." (363 So.2d at page 1064) We hold that the harmless error statute, Section 924.33, is applicable, and that it has not been shown that the error injuriously affected the substantial rights of appellant....

...[5] Since, in the fragile circumstantial *1226 case before us, [6] the hearsay testimony was the only evidence which tended to cast Libertucci's activities in a sinister light, we conclude that the error in admitting this testimony injuriously affected substantial rights of Libertucci, see § 924.33, Fla....

...[6] The weaker the case, the greater the danger that the inadmissible evidence unfairly tipped the scales against the defendant. See Richardson v. State, supra . [7] We perceive no meaningful difference between the "injuriously affects substantial rights" standard for determining harm found in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979) (applicable to the review of criminal cases only) and the "results in a miscarriage of justice" standard found in Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979) (applicable to the review of both civil and criminal cas...

...Read literally and in isolation, the burden imposed by the statute to demonstrate that an error "harmfully affected the judgment or sentence" appears virtually impossible for a defendant to meet. It appears, therefore, that section 924.051(7) should be read in conjunction with section 924.33, Florida Statutes, the prior "harmless error" statute, which was not eliminated upon the enactment of section 924.051(7). Section 924.33 states: 924.33....

...We begin with the proposition that a statute must be construed so that it will be constitutional. See Russo v. Akers, 701 So.2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); State v. Stalder, 630 So.2d 1072 (Fla.1994); Florida Department of Education v. Glasser, 622 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1993);. Our supreme court has held that under section 924.33, the burden imposed on the state was to show "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the [jury's recommendation] or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [outcome]." State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1138 (Fla.1986). When read in conjunction with section 924.33 and DiGuilio, we conclude a defendant meets the burden of section 924.051(7) if he demonstrates a "reasonable *415 possibility" that the error complained of contributed to the verdict....

...NOTES [1] The United States Supreme Court has not yet had occasion to rule on the constitutional validity of sanctions imposed for failure to comply with notice of alibi rules. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83, n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). [2] Although Florida's harmless error statute, Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1975), provides that an appellate court shall not presume that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant, when the error reaches constitutional magnitude it must be judged by federal standards and the holding in Ch...

...give instructions as to them. The error in failing to give an instruction on simple assault was harmless, however, in view of the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. Wilson, supra ; DeLaine v. State, Fla. 1972, 262 So.2d 655; F.S., § 924.33 F.S.A....

...substantial right protected by state law or violated a constitutional right, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that, the error aside, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Harrell v. State, 405 So.2d 480, 482 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); see also § 924.33, Fla....

...There is no doubt that the lower court erred in not holding a Richardson hearing after being requested to do so. Nevertheless, if this were an ordinary case, we would unhesitatingly affirm the judgment below on the virtually self-evident ground that the failure to do so was simply harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...endant's care and control of the child was with the mother's approval at the time the crime was committed. Concluding, on the pivotal question, that the factual scenario of this case is contemplated by Heuring, a harmless error analysis is mandated. § 924.33 Fla....

...It is this latitude which removes the remark in question here from the rule of the Jacobs case cited by the majority, where the prejudicial remark was made in the course of testimony by police officers. The technical error here did not injuriously affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

...However, because we are aware the court did not discuss the traditional harmless error doctrine and because we are convinced it should apply in this case we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question which we deem to be of great public importance: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, *468 FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a) FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPEL...

...1957); McRae v. State, 383 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). As to the remainder, it at best was harmless. Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Russell v. State, 270 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Wells v. State, 256 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1975)....

...trial court that harmfully affected the judgment or sentence." While it is possible, as the defendant suggests, that a "spill over" effect of this evidence may have caused the jury to infer "like father, like son" and unfairly convict the defendant, section 924.33 provides that "......

...287 (1903) (error as to instruction on first-degree murder harmless when defendant convicted of third-degree murder); Day v. State, 54 Fla. 25, 44 So. 715 (1907) (error as to instruction on first-degree murder harmless when defendant convicted of second-degree murder); § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1985); § 924.33, Fla....

...lity and legal consequences of Bolen's knowing he had been in an accident but not that an injury or death was involved. Therefore, it affirmatively appears that any error which arguendo occurred with regard to this point could not have been harmful. Section 924.33, Fla....

...and requested the court to either reread all the instructions or to provide the jury with a copy of the instructions pursuant to CrPR 3.400(c). The state also contends that any error in this case should be treated as harmless error under Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...photographic lineup. Unlike those cases, however, the in-court identification of the defendant was not severely challenged, and there was no alibi or other defense asserted. It therefore clearly appears from this record that the error was harmless. Section 924.33, Fla....

...ndants; as such, the instant case is distinguishable on these points from Kaplow v. State, 157 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), relied upon for reversal herein. We see no merit to the corollary hearsay point raised as it was, at best, a harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

...The statement not only lacks the necessary reliability but its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The jury should not have heard or seen the statement. We must next determine whether the error "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant," section 924.33, Fla....

...After examining the proffered testimony of the three excluded witnesses, together with all of the other evidence and testimony presented in this case, and applying the harmless error rule as we are required to do, we cannot conclude that the exclusion of these witnesses requires reversal. See § 924.33, Fla....

...ful error, has been demonstrated on this point. See Jackson v. State, 328 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Henderson v. State, 304 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jenkins v. State, 208 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) cert. denied, 212 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1968); § 924.33, Fla....

...oceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration." Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 924.33, F.S.A....

...alid reason for departure, to which the state confesses error. Any error in denying the motion for mistrial is purely harmless when the totality of the evidence showed the appellant was a willing participant in the crime and had committed the crime. § 924.33, Florida Statute (1991)....

...ter the time it was testified the waiver was signed, was action by him consistent with the existence of the waiver, and inconsistent with an absence thereof. The error, if any, in regard to the last mentioned ruling of the trial court, was harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The totally unnecessary question regarding the photo album begged for the highly prejudicial answer which may have created an inference in the jury's mind that the defendant had previously been involved with the police. The reference here is not harmless within the meaning of section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...tion occurred after the effective date. This sentencing error was not rendered harmless merely because the defendant was sentenced concurrently to a greater sentence on the new offense which violated his probation. First, the harmless error statute, section 924.33, Florida Statutes, applies to judgments and not sentences and, secondly, the conviction of the later greater offense could be itself defective and subject to reversal or vacation....

...After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel we agree with appellant that the court erred in admitting the three exhibits into evidence, however, we disagree with appellant's conclusion that the introduction of the items deprived her of a fair trial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that: "No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...The law in Florida is that a judgment of conviction should not be reversed unless the error complained of injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1973); Casso v. State, 182 So.2d 252 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Joseph’s prior testimony was cumulative to other evidence establishing the robbery at the car wash and the chase on 1-95. Under these circumstances, reversal is not justified because the error committed at trial neither affected “the substantial rights of the appellant,” § 924.33, Fla....

...da, but was a ruling on the application of the Confrontation Clause as applied in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), to the testimonial statements made by the absent witness in Lucas to a police officer. . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2010) provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...record was so overwhelming, that the technical error, if any, in giving the above jury instruction in no sense contributed to the instant conviction and, *1214 therefore, could not have "injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant." § 924.33, Fla....

...eal, Fla. Stat.Jury Instr. (Crim.) 2.13(i), does not require reversal, but do so only on the ground that, under the circumstances of this case and considering the totality of the instructions to the jury, no harmful error has been demonstrated. Sec. 924.33, Fla....

...the prosecutor in closing argument. An objection made thereto at trial by defendant's counsel was sustained by the court. Considered in light of the evidence in the case the challenged remark of the prosecutor did not constitute harmful error. Under § 924.33 it is provided that a judgment should not be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion after examination of all of the appeal papers that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

*285 PER CURIAM: The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined. We have given due consideration to the alleged errors relied on for reversal but it is not shown that they were harmful. The judgment is affirmed on authority of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, 1941....

...d on appeal. Neither was there any showing that the petitioner was prejudiced by the procedure. The error was harmless. Although there is conflict, we should not disturb the decision of the trial court and of the District Court of Appeal. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...the error complained of was harmless. See, e.g., § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) (“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred”); § 924.33, Fla....

...r and does include some other person. It is impossible to know whether the jury would have reached the same verdict had it included the juror who was struck for an impermissible reason. Accordingly, even under the harmless error analysis mandated by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991), the only appropriate remedy is to remand such a case for a new trial. Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...real impact on the outcome of this case. Stated differently, the above errors complained of, even if they had not occurred, would have made no difference whatever in the ultimate and inevitable outcome of this case. This being so, we are required by Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), to affirm the final judgment of conviction and sentence under review — although, of course, we do not condone the errors complained of, and in a closer case on the issue of guilt or innocence, a different result might very well obtain....

...or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979) provides: When judgment not to be reversed or modified....

of justice” standard. The first is found in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), and is applicable

...light of the fact that there were other witnesses who identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Avis v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 235 ; Solloa v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 217 ; Grech v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 216 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. UPCHURCH, Judge. REVERSED and REMANDED but, as in Gee v. State, 400 So.2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(A), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT'S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLATE...

...court when it approved our opinion in Krawzak. Florida has two harmless error statutes, the one involved here, section 59.041, and the harmless error statute to be applied in criminal appeals. With regard to the latter, our supreme court has stated: Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Considering the evidence in its totality, it appears to us this is an appropriate case for application of the harmless error statute. § 924.33 F.S....

...Long, supra , to affirm the lower court award of fees to the plaintiff broker on the grounds it provided a ready, willing and able buyer for the defendant's property. As concerns a complaint by defendant about certain evidentiary rulings, the receipt of hearsay was, at best, only harmless error. F.S. 924.33 (1973)....

...Even assuming that the trial court did rely on the testimony complained of, said evidence would constitute harmless error in view of the testimony of the accomplice covering the same matters. Thus, it is entirely proper, in the instant case, to apply the provisions of § 924.33 Fla.Stat., 1 and we therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the lower court. See: Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16 , 129 So. 112 ; Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132 , 192 So. 802 ; Albano v. State, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 342 . Affirmed. .§ 924.33 Fla.Stat....

...olding of this Court in McArthur v. Cook, supra . However, there is no basis for this Court to hold that such error has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the defendant. Therefore, such error cannot be the basis of a reversal. Fla. Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...Appellant raises five issues on appeal; only two merit discussion. For the reasons explained below, we reverse Appellant’s conviction for aggravated battery with discharge of a firearm, and instruct the trial court to reduce the conviction to aggravated battery, and resentence Appellant accordingly. See § 924.33, Fla....

den. 393 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 452, 21 L.Ed.2d 442; § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and see 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals

...We are, nevertheless, obliged to conduct a harmless error inquiry. See, e.g., § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred"); § 924.33, Fla....

...We conclude that he should have been given his Miranda rights before being questioned about control of the bedroom. Although the state has not argued that the failure to give the Miranda warning was harmless, our independent review for harmlessness, which we are required to do under section 924.33, Florida Statutes, reveals evidence that the bedroom contained two credit cards and a social security card in appellant's name....

...has already retired to consider their verdict, without the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, and defendant’s counsel being present to voice objections). The classes of error we treat as so categorically harmful as to always require reversal, however, are few. That is because section 924.33 of our statutes generally prohibits us from “presum[ing] that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla....

...1981) (“That the trial court’s ruling was in error does not necessarily require reversal of the judgment. A judgment will not be reversed unless the error was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant. This long standing decisional rule has also been enacted as [section 924.33].” - 14 - (citations omitted))....

...harmless error analysis. As we shall explain, this conclusion does not alter the error’s seriousness, or indeed the potential seriousness of any error subject to such review. Nonetheless, it is the conclusion commanded by the plain language of section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2021), 3 “which provides that harmless error analysis is applicable to all judgments.” Schopp, 653 So....

...“No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla....

contending that it was harmless error under Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. The state argues that the

doubt. Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1982); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1987). The upward departure sentence

...’s lone self-serving statement to indicate withdrawal. Further more, the jury was instructed on abandonment and this defense was argued at length in closing argument and rebuttal, thus any errors in denying the requested instruction were harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...mitting it to return a verdict finding the defendant guilty of larceny, since every robbery includes the crime of larceny. Both cases found the trial court erred in denying a request to give the requested charge or instruction to the jury. F.S.1967, Section 924.33, F.S.A., relating to criminal procedure provides: “No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...But see Deviney v. State, 322 So. 3d 563, 578 (Fla. 2021) (Lawson, J., concurring in part and concurring in result) (arguing in favor of "reced[ing] from Trotter and replac[ing] its per se [reversible error] rule with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes")....

...In that the opinion reached by Dr. Sylvester was cumulative .of other competent evi-dénce introduced at trial, 1 it is our opinion that any error committed by the trial judge in allowing the state the use of said opinion for impeachment purposes would be harmless in nature. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975); see Urga v....

...URIAM. Affirmed. State v. Dickinson, 370 So.2d 762 (Fla.1979); Williams v. State, 285 So.2d 13 (Fla.1973); Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729 (Fla.1961); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959); Langford v. State, 111 Fla. 506 , 149 So. 570 (1933); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977).

PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Davis v. State, Fla.1974, 297 So.2d 289 ; § 924.33 Fla.Stat.

...record, briefs and argument, and conclude that no reversible error has been shown. The record reveals that the trial was not without certain errors, but those were not, in the opinion of this court, harmful so as to require or justify reversal. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...After a careful review of the record, it is our opinion that, notwithstanding the trial court’s restriction, defense counsel did in fact elicit from Moore the information sought. As such, any error committed by the trial court would be harmless, as appellant’s rights were not injuriously affected. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...State, 538 So.2d 515 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 544 So.2d 201 (Fla.1989). 1 The defendant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of these offenses because they are not lesser-degree offenses or necessarily lesser-included offenses of sexual battery upon a victim physically helpless to resist. § 924.33, Fla....

there is in the record is harmless. Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (1971), F.S.A. Affirmed. MANN, C. J., and LILES

- 18 - proceed. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2022); see also Davis v. State,

...�the last question asked of the witness by the prosecutor”, (with *225 out setting forth what it was) we do not feel the damage was, or in fact could have been, undone. The error did affect the substantial rights of the appellant-defendant. F.S.A. § 924.33....

substantial rights of’ [the defendant]”) (quoting § 924.33, Fla. Stat.)); Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392

...er standard of clear and convincing evidence that Boston did not act in self-defense would violate the statutory prohibition on reversing a judgment in the absence of error “that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...See: Wilson v. State, 245 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Powell v. State, 131 Fla. 254 , 175 So. 213 (1937); Clinton v. State, 58 Fla. 23 , 50 So. 580 (1909); *798 Clinton v. State, 56 Fla. 57 , 47 So. 389 (1908); Vol. 16, Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, 1331; Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1979).

...Talavera, 243 So.2d 595 (Fla.1971); Roberts v. State, 164 So.2d 817 (Fla.1964); Rankin v. State, 143 So.2d 193 (Fla.1962); Damon v. State, 397 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Andrews v. State, 372 So.2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Tifford v. State, 334 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1981).

...State, 471 So.2d 32 (Fla.1985); Bohannon v. State, 546 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 557 So.2d 35 (Fla.1990); United States v. Dennis, 786 F.2d 1029 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1037 , 107 S.Ct. 1973 , 95 L.Ed.2d 814 (1987); § 90.803(18)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order of remand 368 So.2d 1285 in this cause, we have heard oral argument thereon and have *253 considered the totality of the record in light of the provisions of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...evidence of the defendant’s guilt. In other words, we are clearly satisfied the defendant would have been found guilty even without this innocuous material. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332 ; Mankowski v. State, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 597 ; Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A....

...in admitting the complained-of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the other overwhelming evidence of guilt presented below. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 709-11 (1967); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481 (Fla.1960); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Castillo v. State, 308 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Kimbrough v. State, 219 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Section 924.33 Fla.Stat....

...ce Manago under section 775.082(1)(b)1., the only action the trial court could take was to resentence Manago under section 775.082(1)(b)2. But the district court disagreed: [W]e already conducted a harmless error review, as required by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2020), but we decline to use the analysis from Green because our case does not involve traditional Alleyne error....

...at 483 n.10). Accordingly, we concluded that Alleyne violations, like Apprendi/Blakely errors, “can be harmless as well” and are therefore subject to harmless error review. Williams, 242 So. 3d at 290, 294. Our harmless error rule is codified in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2020): No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...� that the error affected the verdict, the error is harmful. Id. (quoting DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1135). In Williams, this Court considered whether a trial court’s Alleyne error concerning section 775.082(1)(b), the same provision Section 924.33 respects the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but directs appellate courts not to apply a standard of review which requires that trials be free of harmless errors....

...that the party’s silence is an admission of the truth of such statement. . . . ” Although the lower court’s ruling based on a misconception of the law of hearsay is erroneous, it is not grounds for reversal in light of the harmless error rule, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

that the error, if any, is harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33 (1971). Affirmed. McNULTY, C. J., BOARDMAN, J

rights of the appellant. Therefore, we affirm. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1981); Olsen v. State, 338

the law, constitute harmful error. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33, F.S.A.; Fla.Stat. 59.041, F.S.A.; Cornelius v

...lear and convincing evidence that Boston did not act in self-defense would violate the statutory prohibition on reversing a judgment in the absence of error “that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.” § 924.33, Fla....

...Our examination of the record establishes that the evidence of guilt of the appellant was clear and convincing. The alleged errors do not reach the legality of the trial itself, and in view of the conclusive nature of the evidence offered, there can be no reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt. See Section 924.33, F.S., F.S.A.; Kelly v....

...the statement made to her. Having determined that it was error to admit the privileged communication over the objection of the appellant, we must examine the circumstances further to determine whether or not the error was prejudicial. See Fla.Stat, § 924.33, F.S.A....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); § 924.33, Fla....

with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2017), which was thoroughly

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla....

...We have examined the record fully and find that the admission into evidence of the pistol, after the unintentionally misleading statement to the defendants’ attorney, was not so prejudicial to the defendants as to require a new trial. The courts of this State are specifically enjoined by § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...The testimony was admissible because of its relevancy. Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654 . In face of the strong proof of guilt by other evidence which was uncontradicted, the error if any in that regard was harmless, and as such not basis for reversal here. § 924.33 Fla....

...The charge of manslaughter includes the lesser included offense of vehicular manslaughter. Finally, because the sentence imposed is less or the same as that for vehicular manslaughter, any error would be harmless. We agree. Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla.1973); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991)....

to ignore and violate the mandate found in Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A., it being: “When judgment

...State on cross-examination with reference to the “papa wheel”. We have carefully examined the entire record in this case and it does not appear that any error was committed which injuriously affects the substantial rights of the appellant. F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...S., 344 U.S. 604 , 73 S.Ct. 481 , 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953), and Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862 . In the present instance, the proof of guilt is direct, clear and overwhelming. We, therefore, hold that no prejudicial error is shown. See Fla.St. § 924.33 and Brantley v....

...Therefore, we must determine whether or not under the facts of this case that error prejudiced the defendant or whether the error was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987)....

...An examination of the record herein reveals ample evidence to support the conviction and to conclusively show that the error complained of was, at most, harmless. See and compare Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1988); Damon v. State, supra; Andrews v. State, supra; Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...in separate Rule 3.490 under Section XI pertaining to The Verdict. .On at least five recent occasions, the Fifth District has certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: “Can an appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), to the failure of a trial court to give the jury instruction required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) if the appellant’s guilt is clearly established and the appellate court determines the error could not have affected the verdict?” See Meeks v....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33 (1969), F.S.A. LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33 (1969). LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ.,

...�. The trial court erred in refusing to give the requested standard instruction. White v. State, 299 So.2d 143 (Fla.App. 1974). However, as the defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and battery, the error was harmless, Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...Further, appellant contends that she was entitled to be acquitted because the state undercharged her for second degree murder, instead of first degree murder. It is our conclusion that if any error was committed, the error benefitted the appellant, and, therefore, we hold it was harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A....

...t in fact agreed, to not giving of the lesser included offenses, and in view of the substantial amount of evidence in support of the jury’s verdict, we fail to find any prejudice to the defendants, and therefore under authority of Florida Statutes § 924.33, F.S.A., and the cases cited supra, the sentences and judgments appealed are affirmed....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1995); Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 323 (Fla.1991); State v

PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Fla.Stat. § 924.33; and cf....

cross-examination, it was harmless. See Fla.Stat. § 924.33, and Corbin v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So.2d

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...State, 481 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Robinson v. State, 462 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Berezovsky v. State, 335 So.2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Rolle v. State, 268 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Thomas v. State, 183 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

Hargrett v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So.2d 298; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

substantial rights of the appellant” (which section 924.33 directs “shall not be presumed”) and “has resulted

...We have carefully examined the other contentions raised by the defendant and find that they present no reversible error. See e.g., Mackiewicz v. State, 114 So.2d 684 , 689 (Fla.1959); Stanley v. State, 357 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 891 (Fla.1978); Dowling v. State, 210 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

As I pointed out in the Boatwright opinion, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), exists as this state’s

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979)

cumulative and clearly unnecessary to the judgment. Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes; Ross v. State, 202 So.2d

State, 210 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); and § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1977). Affirmed.

...We find the appellant’s allegations to be without merit on this record, and in light of the conclusive evidence of the defendant’s guilt, error, if any, would be harmless. Brantley v. State, 279 So.2d 290 (Fla.1973); Ennis v. State, 300 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991)....

v. State, 189 So.2d 656 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975); and Fla.R.Crim.P

...by the trial court, there is no basis for reversal or vacatur—an affirmance then being the only authorized disposition. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (providing for summary affirmance if the initial brief fails to demonstrate “a preliminary basis for reversal”); cf. § 924.33, Fla....

...arge. It is not proper for a psychiatrist to repeat at trial the interrogation of the accused taken during his mental examination. To do so may be error. However, the testimony in this case was so overwhelming as to guilt such would be harmless. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Man-kowski v....

...he defendant had a hard case, the error, if any, of the trial court’s ruling thereon, was not in our view such as should have affected the substantial rights of the appellant, *532 upon examination of the record and appeal papers in this case. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332 . The appellant’s final contention, challenging the legality of the Mc-Naghten “right or wrong” test of insanity as applied in the case by the trial court, was without merit. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Campbell v....

...State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 327 ; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1967, 192 So.2d 794 ; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862 ; Robertson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 304 ; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d. 655; Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538 , 87 S.Ct. 639 , 17 L.Ed.2d 593 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge. REVERSED and REMANDED but, as in Gee v. State, 400 So.2d 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT’S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLA...

objection out of the hearing of the jury.” . Section 924.33, F.S.1967, F.S.A.: “No judgment shall be reversed

made any difference in the ultimate outcome. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003); *1225Goodwin v. State, 751

...go the voice display was based solely on the trial court’s ruling, or that the State would have attempted to cross-examine the defendant if he had displayed his voice. As a reviewing court, we cannot undertake the required harmless error analysis, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1991), because a conclusion that any harm followed and was caused by the trial court’s ruling would be speculative....

...The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to be decided in order to rule on the motion.” . Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. den. 361 U.S. 847 , 80 S.Ct. 102 , 4 L.Ed.2d 86 . . 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: “924.33 When judgment not to he reversed or modified....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. C.E., Jr. v. State, 342 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...In the case sub judice, the single comment on petitioner’s silence was just as inconsequential as the statement in State v. Galasso, supra, as it occurred in a hypothetical question going to the issue of sanity rather than the commission of the act. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S.A., provides as follows: “No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

...o give the instruction appears to be harmless, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the same question already certified in Gee v. State, No. 80-336 (Fla. 5th DCA February 11,1981), viz: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY RULE 3.390(a), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, IF THE APPELLANT’S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLA...

...he question, we cannot disturb the trial court’s *274 ruling denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial on the ground of improper argument. Affirmed. KANNER, J. (Ret.), and PATTI-SHALL, W. A., Associate Judge, concur. . See Fla.Stat. § 54.23 and § 924.33, F.S.A....

affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1985); see Perri v. State, 441 So

...cretion in limiting the cross-examination as to the witness Adderly. As to the witness, Steible, if error did occur it was at most harmless on this record. Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981); Sloan v. State, 427 So.2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Section 924.33 Florida Statutes (1985)....

...We held, however, that in view of the substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the error in failing to give the instruction was harmless. Stephens, supra; State v. Wilson, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 45 ; DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655 ; F.S., § 924.33 F.S.A....

...5th DCA 1982), (b) the said error, however, was harmless in the context of this case as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the cause was tried non-jury. See First Atlantic National Bank of Daytona Beach v. Cobbett, 82 So.2d 870, 871-72 (Fla.1955); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...committed to perpetrate a robbery. Under the circumstances the instruction was warranted and the verdict was in response to the charge. It found defendant not guilty as to count one and guilty as to count two. If error was committed it was harmless. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, 1951, F.S.A.; Lowman v....

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

...That is because the allegedly erroneous introduction of the CSLI evidence is harmless.16 A trial court’s error in admitting evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search is subject to harmless error analysis. Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, 739 (Fla. 2013); see § 924.33, Fla....

...State, 366 So.2d 745 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885 , 100 S.Ct. 177 , 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1981); Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 81-1904, opinion filed, May 11, 1982); Section 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...cedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed.” And Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S....

...is used at the direct command of a superior.’ ” It is significant that in referring to this charge the District Court said, “Our quotation of that charge is not to be construed as its approval.” Thus, by the application of Sections 54.23 and 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the error above referred to is harmless and no showing has been made that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); Fields v....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.803(6)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 607 ; Bega v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 455 ; Kearson v. State, 123 Fla. 324 , 166 So. 832 ; Kersey v. State, 73 Fla. 832 , 74 So. 983 ; Ward v. State, 75 Fla. 756 , 79 So. 699 ; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 , 130 So. 582 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Brown v....

harmful error incident thereto was not shown. See Section 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., which provides: “No judgment

v. State, 218 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979). In order to reverse a trial

...State, 393 So.2d 540 (Fla.1980); however, in accordance with this court’s opinion in Studstill v. State, 397 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1981), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: Can an appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, Section 924.33 and Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), to the failure of a trial court to give the jury instruction required by Rule 3.390(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the appellant’s guilt is clearly established and the appella...

...As Justice Ehrlich did in Baird, 572 So.2d at 908 , we too are able to say “there is no reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by this testimony.” See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Lee, 531 So.2d 133 (Fla.1988); and § 924.33, Fla....

...examination by clarifying on redirect examination that he had only a single prior conviction. 1 Although we recognize the trial court’s error, we affirm the conviction because the error did not adversely affect Castillo’s substantial rights. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...There is no doubt that the lower court erred in not holding a Richardson hearing after being requested to do so. Nevertheless, if this were an ordinary case, we would unhesitatingly affirm the judgment below on the virtually self-evident ground that the failure to do so was simply harmless error. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983)....

error asserted, if any, is harmless error under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. *920Accordingly,

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Wadsworth, Fla. 1968, 210 So.2d 4 ; State v. Hines, Fla. 1967, 195 So.2d 550 ; Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16 , 129 So. 112 ; § 924.33 Fla....

error, we find it to have been harmless error. See § 924.33, Florida Statutes. We find the evidence was sufficient

...in his absence, and the facts in the case sub judice. Under the circumstances of this case I would consider the defendant’s absence and the failure to secure his ratification of actions taken in his absence as harmless error within the meaning of Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

we hold it to be harmless error under F.S. Section 924.-33, F.S.A. in view of the fact that the jury declined

...it was done in front of the jury after the evidence had been previously identified before the jury. Therefore, we do not find this to be harmful error. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862 ; Scarpati v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 335 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...J., ERVIN and CARLTON, JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur. BOYD, J., dissents with opinion. DREW (Retired), J., dissents with opinion and concurring specially with dissenting opinion of BOYD, J. . Williams v. State, Fla.App., 243 So.2d 215 ; F.S.A. Section 924.33; Salter v....

v. State-wright, 300 So.2d 674 (Fla.1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977).

error must be fundamental and prejudicial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows:

...State, 389 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Williams v. State, 346 So.2d 67 (Fla.1977); Clark v. State, 378 So.2d 1315, 1316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Whitted v. State, 362 So.2d 668 (Fla.1978); Taylor v. State, 386 So.2d 825, 827-28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...See also section 90.609(2), Florida Statutes (1983). We cannot say, however, that this error constituted reversible error. The totality of the evidence against the defendant, including her admission of guilt, mutes the prejudicial effect of the improperly elicited testimony. See section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983); Palmes v....

...The exclusion of the photographs taken upon the child’s release from the hospital does not constitute reversible error, since this would seem to have a bearing only on the extent of the injuries suffered rather than on the possible cause of the fall. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

Dickenson v. State, Fla.App.1972, 261 So.2d 561; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We have examined the second

second degree murder was ample if not overwhelming. § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Cornelius v. State, Fla. 1950

...However, any prejudice which might have inured to the defendant's detriment was overcome by his testimony and admission to having had sexual relations with the minor victim. Consequently, followed by the defendant's testimony, the victim's latter statement was merely cumulative and constituted harmless error. § 924.33, Fla....

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

...e light of the record as a whole, any error in this respect was, indeed, no more than harmless. State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1984); Palmes v. State, 397 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 369, 70 L.Ed.2d 195 (1981); § 924.33, Fla....

...564 ; Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032 , 128 So. 1 ; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 , 130 So. 582 ; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862 ; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1968, 218 So.2d 180 ; State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 861 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

...1968, 206 So.2d 392 ; Simpson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 211 So.2d 862 ; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1968, 218 So.2d 180 ; Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744 ; Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 872 ; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 902 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Wilcox v. State, 299 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413 (Fla.1975); James v. State, 334 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

...e the jury. Defendant’s defense in this case was that the shooting was an accident but he admitted the actual shooting of the victim. Assuming arguendo that it was error to display certain firearms to the jury, we hold this was harmless error. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

v. State, 130 Fla. 53, 177 So. 321 (1937); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1977). Therefore, the order

118; Smith v. State, 74 Fla. 44, 76 So. 334; F.S. § 924.33, F.S.A. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and

420 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See also Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes (1984). Affirmed. LETTS,

1970); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

PER CURIAM. The errors suggested by appellants are harmless. F.S. 924.33 (1973)....

event, if there was any error it was harmless. Section 924.33, F.S., 1973; McDonnell v. State, Fla.App.1974

...It is our opinion, with reference to appellant, that his Points 2 and 3 lack merit. We agree that a charge should have been given on aggravated assault. However, the omission was harmless in light of the authority of DeLaine v. State, 262 So.2d 655 (Fla.1972) and Fla.Stat. 924.33 (1973)....

...DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (“The unique function of the harmless error rule is to conserve judicial labor by holding harmless those errors which, in the context of the case, do not vitiate the right to a fair trial and, thus, do not require a new trial”) (emphasis supplied); see also § 924.33, Fla....

...The jury was instructed on both premeditated murder and felony murder, but the verdict form only contained a line for first-degree murder, without differentiation. Such a specialized form is not required. See Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285 , 288 n. 3 (Fla.1993). . Section 924.33, "When judgment not to be reversed or modified," provides: No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 and Section 924.33, F.S. 1967, F.S.A. Affirmed. WALDEN, McCAIN

...See Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 , (Fla.) cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905 , 105 S.Ct. 3527 , 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); Odom v. State, 403 So.2d 936 (Fla.1981); Crum v. State, 398 So.2d 810 (Fla.1981); compare Rodriguez v. State, 462 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). § 924.33, Florida Statutes (1984).

...State, 453 So.2d 786 (Fla.1984); Paul v. State, 385 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980); Edmond v. State, 559 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Taylor v. State, 425 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Justus v. State, 438 So.2d 358 (Fla.1983); Section 90.613, Florida Statutes *1228 (1989); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1989); Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.151(a) and 3.151(b).

PER CURIAM. Affirmed: See: Watson v. State, Fla. 1966, 190 So.2d 161 ; Wilson v. State, Fla. App.1974, 305 So.2d 50 ; Lebowitz v. State, Fla.App.1975, 313 So.2d 473 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat.

...alysis.'" Pollard, 780 So.2d at 1017 (quoting Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1988)). Although the State has not argued that the failure to give the Miranda warnings was harmless, we have conducted an independent review for harmlessness. See § 924.33, Fla....

...on of Williams was made from the video tape by the victim’s companion as well as by the victim. Secondly, that the admission of the letter into evidence was prejudicial error. The State contends that error if any in those respects was harmless. By § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

procedure constituted harmless error. F.S.A. § 924.-33. Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332. Affirmed

...The State has made no attempt to establish that this inherently prejudicial practice was harmless and did not actually contribute to the jury’s verdict. Nonetheless, we hold that the error was harmful. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986); see § 924.33, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639 (Fla.1982); State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla.1974); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983).

...We believe that the evidence also was sufficient under count two to have justified a finding of guilt for robbery, the greater offense in this instance. Therefore, even if the court was incorrect in finding that the value of the property stolen exceeded $100, we conclude that the error was harmless. Fla.Stat. § 924.33, F.S....

...Although the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, § 90.614(2), Fla.Stat. (1983), we deem the error harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Mahone v. State, 222 So.2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...On this appeal, he urges error upon several rulings of the trial judge during the trial. We find that the proof of appellant’s guilt was clear and evident and that the rulings upon which error is assigned could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Affirmed. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).

655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1993). Pursuant to section 924.33, and case law, the burden

Accordingly, I would affirm on this basis as well. F.S. § 924.33; e. g., Henry v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 290 So

...3d DCA 1979), and (b) the denial of the motion for a severance of defendants and the exclusion of certain evidence at trial presents no reversible error. Manson v. State, 88 So.2d 272 (Fla.1956); Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...esented below which indicated that the defendant’s confession, admitted in evidence, was not freely and voluntarily given. This being so, the above error was entirely harmless because it did not materially contribute to the convictions herein. See § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...Before WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. The only arguable error presented on this appeal from a second degree murder conviction, which concerns the allegedly improper admission of "expert" testimony by a crime scene investigator, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See § 924.33, Fla....

clear that the harmless error rule set forth in Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979), cannot be resorted

States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 64; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat.

...We affirm all but the latter conviction, and find it to be error under Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987) and Smith v. State, 539 So.2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The other points raised by the appellant as error we find not to be meritorious under Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987)....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bova v. State, 392 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Mullin, 286 *618 So.2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); § 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987).

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); McGriff v. State, 497 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Larkins v. State, 476 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McNeal v. State, 303 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); § 924.33 Florida Statutes (1987); Greer v....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1991).

...2d DCA 1985); State v. Prieto, 439 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Perez v. State, 390 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Williams v. State, 353 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 372 So.2d 64 (Fla.1977); New v. State, 211 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1987).

...rder with a firearm as life felonies shall provide instead that these offenses are first degree felonies. See Davis v. State, 486 So.2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). There is no other harmful error. See Hayward v. State, 590 So.2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

automatically require reversal on appeal. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33, F.S.A. Here, there was evidence before the jury

in the record and thus harmless error. See Fla.Stat. 924.33 F.S.A., Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So

...In the case sub judice, no instructions whatsoever had been given upon the “sideline” or “collateral” offense of assault. Therefore, the complete absence of any charge on this offense is clearly reversible error. We have not overlooked Florida Statute § 924.33 (1969), F.S.A., our harmless error statute, which provides in essence that no judgment shall be reversed unless it appears that the error committed injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

..., and (c) an unimpeached eye witness positively identified the defendant at trial as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he stands convicted. Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ballard v. State, 323 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

conviction and judgment below are affirmed. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d

...tate v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Under that analysis, there is an argument that constitutional reasons do not exist in this type of case to override the statutory mandate requiring affirmance in the absence of demonstrated harmful error. § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

entitlement to relief, which is his burden under section 924.33, Florida Statutes. I would affirm the trial

Florida, 1939. Section 309 of this Act, now F.S.A. § 924.33, provides: “No judgment shall be reversed unless

...been infringed. The Legislature, in fact, precludes us from reversing a judgment unless, in our opinion, an “error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant,” and harm, notably, is not to be “presumed.” § 924.33, Fla....

...reversal. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 21–22, 26 (1967) (looking instead to whether the error infringed the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1134 (Fla. 1986) (upholding constitutionality of section 924.33, Florida Statutes, as “respect[ing] the constitutional right to a fair trial free of harmful error but direct[ing] appellate courts not to apply a 15  I mentioned above how trial judges do not...

critical appellate function."). Additionally, section 924.33, Florida Statutes (2024), enacted in 1939,

...ving failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed See United States ex rel. Catanzaro v. *553 Mancusi, 404 F.2d 296 (2nd Cir. 1968); People v. Rhodes, 41 Ill.2d 494 , 244 N.E.2d 145 (1969); F.S. Section 924.33, F.S.A....

...The judgment of conviction, however, which is also under review by this appeal is affirmed. The prosecuting attorney’s comment to the jury attacked on this appeal, although technically improper, had no impact whatever, in our view, on the outcome of this case, and, accordingly, presents no reversible error. § 924.33, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1979); compare: O’Berry v....

...3d at 578 (Lawson, J., joined by Canady, C.J., and Grosshans, J., concurring in part and concurring in result) (observing that “Trotter’s per se rule is clearly erroneous” as it is inconsistent “with the harmless error standard set forth in section 924.33, Florida Statutes,” and “thoroughly examined” in DiGuilio). 10  Indeed, per se reversal for an error in denying a peremptory strike would seemingly conflict with our Legislature’s directive to limit reversals to “error that [has] injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant” or has “resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” § 924.33, Fla....

...State, (Fla.App.) 400 So.2d 473 . We join the Fifth District and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: *755 and the appellate court determines the error could not have affected the verdict? *754 Can an appellate court apply the harmless error doctrine, section 924.33 and section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1979), to the failure of a trial court to give the jury instruction required by Rule 3.390(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the appellant’s guilt is clearly established *755 ERVIN and...

...First, it was within the discretion of the trial court to sustain the state’s objection to the defendant’s question herein, and, in any event, the error, if any, was harmless. See Cruce v. State, 87 Fla. 406 , 100 So. 264 (1924) (syllabus by court, 6); § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

...s a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [probation or] parole. . . . ’ ” .Fla., 305 So.2d 1 . . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes: “No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court is of the opinion, after an examination of all the appeal papers, that error was committed that injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 924.33, Fla....

...We find the appellant’s contentions to be meritorious. The other rulings urged to be error are found to be without merit. State v. Jones, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 515 ; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 763 ; Smith v. State, Fla.App.197l, 243 So.2d 602 ; Henry v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So.2d 73 ; § 924.33, Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. The appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, abuse of discretion, or misapplication of the law by the trial court. See Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Fouts v....

The error being harmless, we affirm. Fla.Stat. § 924.-33 (1969). PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

...d not been admitted into evidence. The jury’s request was neither an express request for testimony to be read to them nor a request for additional instructions regarding the law in the case and thus was not per se within the scope of Rule 3.410. . Section 924.33, Florida Statutes....

...5th DCA 1981), we are convinced that the harmless error rule should apply in this case and therefore certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question which we deem to be of great public importance: CAN AN APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 AND SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979), TO THE FAILURE OF A TRIAL COURT TO GIVE THE JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.390(a), IF THE APPELLANT’S GUILT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND THE APPELLATE COUR...

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

APPELLATE COURT APPLY THE HARMLESS ERROR DOCTRINE, SECTION 924.33 and SECTION 59.041, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979)

an earlier stage of the proceedings below. Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979). *8632. The apparent claim

Mathews v. State, Fla.App.1969,221 So.2d 431; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, we find that the trial

interrogatory verdict. Thus affirmance is required by section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983). As we said in Walsh