Harmless Error

• Author: John Kaplan
• Pages: 1270-1271

Page 1270

Not all denials of a defendant's federal constitutional rights compel reversal of a conviction. The Supreme Court announced in Chapman v. California (1967) as a matter of federal constitutional law that, in criminal proceedings, if the beneficiary of the error can prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that the error in no way contributed to the result, the case need not be reversed. This standard applies to state as well as federal proceedings and state rules requiring only a lesser showing of the harmlessness of error are not controlling when federal constitutional error has been shown.

Although the Supreme Court's standard is stricter than that of many state courts (which may adhere to a lesser standard than reasonable doubt or even in some cases shift the BURDEN OF PROOF to the victim of the error), it nevertheless falls short of a per se rule requiring automatic reversal for all violations of federal constitutional rights. Thus, for example, where EVIDENCE obtained through an UNREASONABLE SEARCH in violation of the FOURTH AMENDMENT is improperly admitted into a trial, reversal of a guilty verdict is not always required. The Supreme Court has stated that certain kinds of violations do, indeed, require automatic reversal?such as coerced confessions or unconstitutionally obtained guilty pleas?but these kinds of violation are few in number.

Chapman itself concerned a prosecutor's comments to the jury upon the defendants' failure to testify, in violation of defendants' Fifth Amendment RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, and cases involving harmless error doctrine may arise from any part of the Constitution. The bulk of the decided cases, though, have involved application of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE to evidence unconstitutionally seized.

Where illegally obtained evidence is the sole or primary basis for a conviction, of course, the conviction must be reversed. On the other hand, where independent, admissible evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, or illegally obtained evidence is noninflammatory and merely

Page 1271

cumulative, reversal is not required. But such a finding will often involve difficult determinations. First, which evidence is actually...