Also known as: substantial right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard used by courts to determine whether an error or defect warrants reversal, a new trial, or other relief. Courts must disregard any error that leaves a party's ability to obtain a fair outcome intact.
Sabrina Shah sued a hospital after a delayed diagnosis. The trial court wrongly excluded a nurse's testimony as cumulative. Other witnesses and records already covered the missed notifications, so the appellate court disregarded the error.
Sierra Santos sued a news site for defamation. The court admitted unrelated prior retractions to impeach her. Overwhelming independent emails and interviews supported the defense, so the court denied a new trial.
Skylar Sullivan sued a studio for defamation. Counsel made only a vague pretrial objection to producer testimony about off-air remarks. The court admitted the evidence because no timely specific objection preserved the claim.
Spencer Silver sued a facility for breach. The district court issued only a bare conclusion that the plaintiff failed its burden. The appellate court examined the full record and affirmed because the outcome was unaffected.
Sophia Singh was convicted after an unobjected-to instruction allowing the jury to consider her silence as evidence of guilt. Overwhelming documentary proof of fraud meant the error did not affect the outcome on plain-error review.
Simon Stern was convicted after the prosecutor commented on his failure to testify. The court applied harmless-error analysis and affirmed because the remaining evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ruth Elizabeth Chapman and Thomas LeRoy Teale were convicted in a California state court upon a charge that they robbed, kidnaped, and murdered a bartender. Chapman was sentenced to life imprisonment and Teale to death. At trial both petitioners chose not to testify. The prosecutor took full advantage of a provision in the California Constitution allowing comment on a defendant's failure to testify, filling his argument to the jury from beginning to end with numerous references to their silence and inferences of guilt. The trial court also charged the jury that it could draw adverse inferences from petitioners' failure to testify. The trial took place before this Court decided Griffin v. California. On appeal the California Supreme Court acknowledged that petitioners had been denied a federal constitutional right by the comments on their silence but affirmed applying the State's harmless-error provision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to these questions: where there is a violation of the rule of Griffin v. California, can the error be held to be harmless, and if so, was the error harmless in this case.
View caseAn evidentiary error affects substantial rights only if there is a reasonable probability that the ruling influenced the outcome. Courts examine the entire record to decide whether the excluded or admitted evidence would have changed the result.
Supporting sources
Under plain-error review an unpreserved error must still affect substantial rights before a court may notice it. The appellant must show a reasonable probability that the error changed the outcome despite the lack of a timely objection.
Supporting sources
A late amendment does not affect substantial rights when it adds no new factual issues and rests on evidence already disclosed. The opposing party retains full notice and opportunity to prepare its defense.
Supporting sources
When the record contains overwhelming independent proof supporting the verdict, an error is unlikely to have affected substantial rights. Courts treat the error as harmless and affirm the judgment.
Supporting sources
…Rule 103(a) provides in relevant part: "Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ..... "(2) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the…