Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings

465 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Diecidue
  603 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 226×
  A RICO conspiracy indictment adequately alleges an essential element when it charges defendants with willfully and knowingly conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) and describes the nature of the racketeering activities composing the alleged pattern. The definition of 'enter
• Blanco v. State
  452 So. 2d 520· Fla.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 211×
  Omar Blanco appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and armed burglary, and his death sentence, challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, the admission of identification testimony and other evidence, jury instructions, and the propriety of the death penalty. The Florida S
• United States v. Phyliss Briscoe
  896 F.2d 1476· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 164×
  The admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if it implicates the defendant, does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the violation is harmless error.
• Schoenwetter v. State
  931 So. 2d 857· Fla.· 2006-04-27 ·cited 122×
  Randy Schoenwetter was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Virginia and Ronald Friskey during a home invasion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, finding the trial court properly admitted evidence,
• RAY v. State
  755 So. 2d 604· Fla.· 2000-02-03 ·cited 115×
  Terry Paul Ray was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft for his role in a liquor store robbery that resulted in the death of a sheriff's deputy. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment
• Davis v. State
  859 So. 2d 465· Fla.· 2003-09-11 ·cited 107×
  Adam Davis was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the planned killing of his girlfriend's mother, Vicki Robinson. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Davis's nine appellate arguments challenging the admissi
• Scheib v. Williams-McWILLIAMS Co., Inc.
  628 F.2d 509· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence or in its jury instructions, and the jury verdict was supported by evidence.
• United States v. Zapata
  871 F.2d 616· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction, refusing to strike testimony after a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment, or admitting hotel registration records. Any error in the jury instruction regarding pr
• Harrington v. United States
  504 F.2d 1306· 1st Cir.· 1974-10-24 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motions for directed verdict and in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, affirming the judgment against the plaintiffs.
• United States v. James ("Jake") Rohrer
  708 F.2d 429· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-25 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for drug offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and that no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• Coppolino v. State
  223 So. 2d 68· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-11-08 ·cited 75×
  Carl Coppolino was convicted of second-degree murder in the poisoning death of his wife Carmela, despite being charged with first-degree murder. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that novel forensic evidence detecting succinylcholine chloride was admissible, th
• United States v. Funt
  896 F.2d 1288· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 72×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, and the sentencing determination was proper.
• United States v. Hernandez
  896 F.2d 513· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Giral of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, but sufficient for Bauta and Hernandez. The admission of prior convictions under Rule 404(b) was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Partin
  493 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the total financial benefits paid to material witnesses and the failure to provide specific jury instructions on the impeachment of witnesses constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Milham
  590 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the van was permissible under a forfeiture statute, the admission of a pistol into evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance motions was proper. The court also affirmed the admissibility of coconspirator sta
• Baker v. State
  71 So. 3d 802· Fla.· 2011-07-07 ·cited 63×
  Cornelius Baker appeals his conviction and death sentence for the January 2007 first-degree murder, home invasion robbery, kidnapping, and fleeing from police in connection with the robbery and murder of Elizabeth Uptagrafft. The Florida Supreme Court affirms all convictions and
• United States v. Runner
  502 F.2d 908· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court's general voir dire questions regarding racial prejudice were insufficient given the surrounding circumstances, thus denying the defendant his right to an impartial jury.
• Cruse v. State
  588 So. 2d 983· Fla.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 61×
  William Bryan Cruse Jr. was convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and numerous other offenses stemming from a mass shooting rampage in April 1987 that killed six people and injured ten others. He appeals his convictions and two death sentences, raising claims regarding B
• Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza P'rs
  747 F.2d 1324· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act does not extend to solvent co-defendants of the debtor, and that evidentiary rulings were either waived, cured, or did not affect substantial rights.
• United States v. Bonnett
  877 F.2d 1450· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that passing a series of worthless checks can constitute a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a)(1), and that the defendants' conduct in using these checks to artificially inflate account balances constituted a scheme to obtain property by false pretenses und
• United States v. Jackson
  780 F.2d 1305· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the government's failure to disclose the full extent of a key witness's employment relationship with a private company did not violate due process under Brady v. Maryland because the undisclosed information was not material, and the district court did not abus
• United States v. Asbury
  586 F.2d 973· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the strip searches conducted by customs officials were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Alvarez
  860 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant organized or managed certain individuals under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute.
• United States v. Hill
  655 F.2d 512· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding expert psychological testimony due to a lack of foundation and the defendant's failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 12.2(b) notice requirements for mental condition defenses.
• United States v. Will Renfro
  620 F.2d 497· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-30 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in its discovery rulings, jury charge, or evidentiary decisions.
• Clement A. Evans & Co., Inc. v. McALPINE
  434 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a plaintiff in a Rule 10b-5 action must demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering fraud, considering their sophistication and access to information.
• United States v. Reyes
  798 F.2d 380· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, the scope of the search warrant was not exceeded, the admitted evidence was properly authenticated, and co-conspirator testimony was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Medel
  592 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the joint representation of the defendants did not create a conflict of interest, and other alleged errors were either harmless or not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Jenkins
  525 F.2d 819· 6th Cir.· 1975-11-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant, and evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion.
• Taylor v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC
  940 F.3d 582· 11th Cir.· 2019-10-08 ·cited 47×
  Teresa Taylor sued Mentor Worldwide LLC for injuries from a polypropylene mesh sling implant (ObTape) used to treat urinary incontinence, claiming defective design and failure to warn. The jury found Mentor liable and awarded Taylor $400,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million
• United States v. Shukitis
  877 F.2d 1322· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting tape recordings and testimony of prior drug purchases, nor did it err in denying an entrapment instruction, and that the defendant waived his right to be present at in-chambers conferences.
• United States v. L'Allier
  838 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's due process rights were not violated by pre-indictment delay as he failed to show actual prejudice, the identification evidence was admissible, the offenses were properly joined, and the chain of custody issues did not render the evidence inadm
• United States v. MacHi
  811 F.2d 991· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a scheme to defraud a person by promising to reduce their sentence, even if the defendants never intended to fulfill the promise, constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 because the natural and probable consequence of such a scheme is to impe
• Morton A. Kier v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos.
  808 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 44×
  A reasonable jury could not conclude that the defendant violated the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), and therefore the district court's order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed.
• United States v. Brown
  688 F.2d 1112· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of business records and 'bad acts' evidence was not an abuse of discretion, comments on silence were harmless error, and the falsification counts sufficiently alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
• United States v. Pearson
  508 F.2d 595· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-21 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act, the challenged evidence was properly admitted, and the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Brown
  547 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence admitted was relevant, the jury charge was not plain error, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aiding and abetting.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AMY Travel Serv., Inc.
  875 F.2d 564· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the statutory grant of authority to issue permanent injunctions under Section 13(b) of the FTCA includes the power to order ancillary equitable relief, such as rescission and restitution. It also affirmed the magistrate's evidentiary rulings and the imposition
• United States v. Pendas-Martinez
  845 F.2d 938· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 41×
  The court held that admitting a government agent's report, which constituted a written summary of the government's case and contained inadmissible hearsay, into evidence and submitting it to the jury was an abuse of discretion that required reversal.
• United States v. Miranda-Uriarte
  649 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, the evidence was sufficient to convict, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on jury instructions, evidence admission, or cross-examination.
• United States v. Zimmerman
  832 F.2d 454· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the jury instructions were proper, the tape-recorded evidence was admissible, and the denial of the mistrial motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Bigelow
  914 F.2d 966· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all defendants but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found the 'ostrich instruction' appropriate for Lima, Bigelow's hearsay objections meritless, Vaughan's due process ch
• NEW Burnham Prairie Homes v. Vill. OF Burnham
  910 F.2d 1474· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the RICO, due process, and equal protection claims, and that evidentiary and instructional rulings during the trial of the racial discrimination claims were not an abuse of discretion.
• Davis v. Lane
  814 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by merging jury instructions for federal and state law claims and by directing a verdict on the due process claim, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Peco
  784 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge believes the prosecutor's closing argument remarks were improper and prejudiced the defendants' trial, warranting reversal.
• Jorgenson v. State
  714 So. 2d 423· Fla.· 1998-06-11 ·cited 37×
  Ronald Jorgenson was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Tammy Jo Ruzga and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated the death sentence, finding it disproportionate based on the single aggravating factor (a 1967 prior murder convi
• United States v. McELROY
  910 F.2d 1016· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the bank bribery statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, that there was no improper overlap in the charges, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary or sentencing rulings.
• United States v. Newton
  891 F.2d 944· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or claims of governmental misconduct.
• United States v. De Rosa
  783 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment and the convictions, finding no prosecutorial misconduct warranting dismissal, that the defendant had a duty to disclose information under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, that the false statements were material, and that the
• United States v. Kimmel
  777 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a civil release, nor in its jury instructions regarding intent, good faith, consciousness of guilt, or deadlocked juries.