Harmless error
Encyclopedia
A harmless error is a ruling by a trial
judge
that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal
, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary
context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ("Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.")http://www.federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule103. The general burden when arguing that evidence
was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact.
In the case of Earll v. State of Wyoming 2001 WY 66 29 P.3d 787
, the Wyoming Supreme Court
distinguished between reversible error
(which requires a conviction
be overturned) and harmless error (which does not), as follows:
In the evidentiary context, a harmless error is usually one where the evidence had no relevance to the issues to be decided by the trier of fact, evidence admitted actually helped the party seeking the reversal, or the remaining evidence was overwhelmingly against the party seeking reversal.
For example, a prosecutor
may try to bolster its case by bringing in an expert witness
to explain the behavior of one of the key witnesses. If the judge allows the expert to testify that there was a reason to explain away inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, this will most likely be grounds for an appeal, as in most cases evidence that only bolsters the credibility
of a witness is not admissible
. However, if there were a number of other witnesses against the losing party, the appellate court
may rule that this mistake was of no consequence and that even if the evidence had been excluded, the losing party would have lost.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) holds that "Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded."
Trial
A trial is, in the most general sense, a test, usually a test to see whether something does or does not meet a given standard.It may refer to:*Trial , the presentation of information in a formal setting, usually a court...
judge
Judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open...
that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary
Evidence (law)
The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence...
context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ("Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.")http://www.federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence#Rule103. The general burden when arguing that evidence
Evidence (law)
The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence...
was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact.
In the case of Earll v. State of Wyoming 2001 WY 66 29 P.3d 787
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
, the Wyoming Supreme Court
Wyoming Supreme Court
The Wyoming Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Wyoming. The Court consists of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices. Each Justice is appointed by the Governor of Wyoming for an eight-year term. The five Justices select the Chief Justice from amongst themselves. The person...
distinguished between reversible error
Reversible error
In law, a reversible error is an error by the trier of law or the trier of fact or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys which results in an unfair trial...
(which requires a conviction
Conviction
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal . In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal...
be overturned) and harmless error (which does not), as follows:
In the evidentiary context, a harmless error is usually one where the evidence had no relevance to the issues to be decided by the trier of fact, evidence admitted actually helped the party seeking the reversal, or the remaining evidence was overwhelmingly against the party seeking reversal.
For example, a prosecutor
Prosecutor
The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the common law adversarial system, or the civil law inquisitorial system...
may try to bolster its case by bringing in an expert witness
Expert witness
An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally...
to explain the behavior of one of the key witnesses. If the judge allows the expert to testify that there was a reason to explain away inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, this will most likely be grounds for an appeal, as in most cases evidence that only bolsters the credibility
Credibility
Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.Traditionally, modern, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective...
of a witness is not admissible
Admissible evidence
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding...
. However, if there were a number of other witnesses against the losing party, the appellate court
Appellate court
An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals or appeal court , is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal...
may rule that this mistake was of no consequence and that even if the evidence had been excluded, the losing party would have lost.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) holds that "Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded."