Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 924.33 (2025)

When judgment not to be reversed or modified.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

924.33 When judgment not to be reversed or modified.—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.

History.—s. 309, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(322); s. 160, ch. 70-339.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 338 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). · cites it 11× “§ 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1981). *1139 In his perceptive essay, The Riddle of Harmless Error, former Chief Justice Traynor addressed various common errors which, historically, appellate courts fall into when applying harmless error analysis.”

Frank Special v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014). · cites it 14× “” § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (2003). The DiGuilio Court stated that section 924.”

Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 10× “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…”

Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999). · cites it 8× “041, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: No judgment shall be set aside or reversed, or new trial granted by any court of the state in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of [1] misdirection of the jury or [2] the improper admission or rejection of evidence or [3]…”

State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 5× “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.”

Dobbert v. State, 328 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1976). · cites it 4× “, 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.”

Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976). · cites it 4× “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.”

State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1985). · cites it 3× “Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1983), adopts the harmless error rule for appeals of criminal convictions: 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…”

State v. Jones, 377 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1979). · cites it 4× “See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1977). With regard to the instructions, the defendant must show the misinstruction confused or misled the jury.”

Begley v. State, 483 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). · cites it 4× “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.”

Palmes v. State, 397 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1977). Although, in a capital case, this Court will carefully scrutinize any error before determining it to be harmless, Pait v.”

Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1979). Defendant next contends that the failure of the trial court to grant any of his motions for continuances was a denial of adequate time to prepare a defense and a denial of due process.”

Show all 338 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.