When an appellate court affirms a conviction, it means that they found no reversible error in the original trial. In other words, any errors that may have occurred were deemed “harmless,” meaning they did not affect the outcome of the case. Not every mistake warrants relief; courts distinguish between “reversible” errors, which are outcome-changing, and “harmless” errors, which have no likely impact.

Typically, the appellant must demonstrate “prejudice” or show how an error affected the outcome. However, for certain protected constitutional errors, the State bears the burden of proving harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Many affirmances are due to issues with preserving objections, deferential standards of review, or a strong trial record that outweighs any alleged error.

It’s important to note that “no reversible error” on direct appeal does not necessarily exhaust all legal options. Some issues, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence, may be pursued through post-conviction procedures if supported by admissible proof.