Also known as: harmless error · harmless-error rule · harmless error doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A doctrine permitting probate of a defectively executed will when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be the will.
A doctrine permitting probate of a defectively executed will when the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be the will.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle under which a conviction is not reversed for trial error unless the error affected substantial rights or contributed to the verdict.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle under which a conviction is not reversed for trial error unless the error affected substantial rights or contributed to the verdict.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Hakeem Harris printed a will leaving his estate to his niece but forgot to sign it before witnesses. After his death the niece offered the document for probate and presented testimony that Harris had reviewed every page and declared it his final wishes. The court admitted the will because the proponent established by clear and convincing evidence that Harris had adopted the document as his will.
The proponent must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be the will. This standard replaces strict compliance with execution formalities when the evidence shows the decedent adopted the document.
Supporting sources
Yes when the proponent supplies clear and convincing evidence that the decedent reviewed and adopted the document as the will. The absence of a signature is the hardest defect to excuse but is not automatically fatal under the rule.
Supporting sources
Harriet Hamilton stood trial with a co-defendant whose confession implicating her was read to the jury. The trial court admitted the statement without limiting instructions. On appeal the court held the error was not harmless because the statement contributed to the verdict and violated her confrontation rights.
Holly Hayes remained silent after arrest and the prosecutor commented on that silence during closing argument. The trial court sustained an objection and instructed the jury to disregard the remark. The appellate court affirmed the conviction because the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the single comment did not contribute to the verdict.
Hannah Hale invoked her right to silence after receiving Miranda warnings and the prosecutor asked her why she had not told her exculpatory story earlier. The trial court sustained an objection and gave a curative instruction. The reviewing court found the error harmless because the remaining evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
Hamid Hassan was identified at a post-indictment lineup conducted without counsel. The identification testimony was admitted at trial. The appellate court upheld the conviction after determining that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the identification did not contribute to the verdict given the other evidence.
Hope Howard was charged with a single conspiracy but the evidence showed multiple smaller conspiracies. The trial court refused to dismiss the indictment. The appellate court affirmed because the variance did not affect Howard's substantial rights given the strength of the proof against her.
No. Structural errors such as complete denial of counsel at trial require automatic reversal and are not subject to harmless error review. The rule applies only to trial errors that can be quantitatively assessed against the remaining evidence.
Supporting sources
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. This standard applies on direct review of constitutional errors under the Chapman framework.
Supporting sources
Yes. Minor deviations from precise Miranda wording or failures to advise about appointed counsel can be harmless when the government shows the error did not affect the verdict.
Supporting sources
…to invoke Anderson . I agree with the Government that the admission of the evidence now protested by petitioner was at most harmless error, and two final contentions—one involving weight of the evidence and another improper prosecutor comment—seem to me without merit. I would therefore affirm Westover's conviction. In…