Is Defendant's contention that erroneous admission of uncharged misconduct evidence should be evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for federal constitutional error?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Firestone, D064875 (Cal. App. 2014):
1. Defendant's contention that the erroneous admission of uncharged misconduct evidence should be evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for federal constitutional error is unavailing. (See People v. Jandres (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 340, 357.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the federal harmless error standard for determining that an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in the federal and state courts for determining whether a federal error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
Does the erroneous admission into evidence of an involuntary confession constitute a federal constitutional error? (California, United States of America)
If a defendant's request for reappointment of counsel for a preliminary hearing was rejected immediately before the preliminary hearing commenced, is such error harmless even under the beyond-the-reasonable doubt standard? (California, United States of America)
Is a federal constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court error of inadequately warning a defendant of the pitfalls and hazards involved in self-representation constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's contention that an error in judgment is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General's error in admitting evidence of a defendant's inconsistent testimony in the prosecution's case in chief, rather than for impeachment purposes, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between the "no reasonable possibility" standard and the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? (California, United States of America)
