JAMES RICHARD COOPER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed and remanded a Second District Court of Appeal decision that upheld Cooper's sexual battery and lewd molestation convictions, holding that the appellate court applied an improper harmless error standard by focusing on the strength of evidence rather than whether there was a reasonable possibility the error affected the verdict.
The proper harmless error test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict, not whether the evidence was strong, overwhelming, sufficient, or met any other sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. The Second District erred by relying on the strength of the taped admission rather than applying the correct DiGuilio standard.
[1] A harmless error analysis requires determining whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.
[2] A harmless error analysis is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence test, nor is it a strong evidence test.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the applicable test 'is not a sufñciency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.' DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1139. Likewise, it is not a strong evidence test. Rather, the test is 'whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.'”
Establishes the proper harmless error standard under DiGuilio and what it is not
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCooper was convicted of four counts of sexual battery on a person in familial custody and two counts of lewd molestation for sexual abuse of a single …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State V. Diguilio Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
James Richard Cooper seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Cooper v. State, 13 So.3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), on the grounds that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).1
Cooper was convicted of four counts of sexual battery on a person in familial custody and two counts of lewd molestation for his sexual abuse of a single victim over a period of years. Cooper v. State, 13 So.3d 147, 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). On appeal, the Second District concluded that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence that Cooper engaged in extensive, ongoing abuse of the victim when Cooper was charged with only six single counts of sexual misconduct.2 Id. at 148=49. The Second District then performed a harmless error analysis, citing but not using the standard set forth by this Court in DiGuilio:
As to whether the error of allowing the State to present evidence of extensive abuse did or did not contribute to the verdict, we note that if the case had been presented as six distinct acts as charged, the State’s presentation of its case would have necessarily been different. On the other hand, the jury heard a taped statement where Cooper admit*43ted engaging in sexual acts with the victim. Because the taped statement is strong evidence of Cooper’s guilt, we conclude that the error of allowing the State to present evidence of multiple sexual acts did not affect the verdict and was harmless in this case. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Cooper, 13 So.3d at 149 (emphasis added).
Although the Second District cited DiGuilio, it failed to follow the DiGuilio standard when it relied on what it deemed the “strong evidence of Cooper’s guilt.” Id. As we have explained, the applicable test “is not a sufñciency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test.” DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1139. Likewise, it is not a strong evidence test. Rather, the test is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” Id.; see also Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086, 1091 (Fla.2010) (quashing and remanding a district court’s decision when the harmless error analysis focused on overwhelming evidence of guilt because it “does not address a proper [DiGuilio ] analysis and does not discuss whether there is a reasonable possibility that the ... error affected the verdict”).
Accordingly, we quash and remand to the Second District for reconsideration of the harmless error analysis enunciated in DiGuilio.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Jackson v. State, 107 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 2012)…an “overwhelming evidence” test because the relative strength of the permissible evidence does not negate the fact that the impermissible evidence may have played a substantial part in the jury’s deliberation. Id. at 1136; see also Cooper v. State, 43 So. 3d 42, 43 (Fla.2010) (reiterating that the harmless error test is whether there is any reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict); State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133, 136 (Fla.1988) (recognizing the focus of the harmless error analysis must be…
-
Alvarez v. State, 147 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…the error is by definition harmful.” Id. Although DiGuilio makes it clear that an error may be harmful even if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, the Florida Supreme Court has had to revisit this issue many times. See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 43 So. 3d 42, 43 (Fla.2010) (quashing and remanding for district court to conduct another harmless error analysis where the district court found that admission of evidence of uncharged acts of sexual abuse was error but affirmed conviction based on “strong evide…
-
Jahmahree Daniel v. State, 238 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…harmless error analysis focused on overwhelming evidence of guilt because it "does not address a proper [ DiGuilio ] analysis and does not discuss whether there is a reasonable possibility that the ... error affected the verdict"). Cooper v. State, 43 So. 3d 42, 43 (Fla. 2010) ; see Jackson v. State, 107 So. 3d 328, 342 (Fla. 2012) (reiterating that court "has many times emphasized that the harmless error test is not a 'sufficiency of the evidence' test or an 'overwhelming evidence' test because the relati…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Ventura v. State, 29 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- Cooper v. State, 13 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)