Admissibility Of Prior Convictions

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

• United States v. Cook
  608 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 113×
  A defendant is entitled to appellate review of a denied Rule 609 motion without testifying, but must demonstrate prejudice from the ruling.
• United States v. Tomaiolo
  249 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-21 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of numerous evidentiary errors, particularly the improper cross-examination of the defendant and the impeachment of a defense witness, deprived the defendant Tomaiolo of a fair trial.
• United States v. Arteaga-Limones
  529 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 96×
• United States v. Burkhart
  458 F.2d 201· 10th Cir.· 1972-02-14 ·cited 94×
  Evidence of prior Dyer Act convictions is admissible to prove intent and negate accident or mistake in a current Dyer Act charge.
• Trucking Emps. OF N. Jersey Welf. Fund, Inc. v. Romano
  450 So. 2d 843· Fla.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 82×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a criminal conviction cannot be used offensively in a subsequent civil action by non-parties to the criminal proceeding to establish collateral estoppel, even when the underlying facts are identical. The court affirmed the requirement of mutual
• United States v. King
  505 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the admission of a co-indictee's guilty plea without a specific cautionary instruction did not constitute plain error, nor was evidence of a prior similar fraudulent transaction improperly admitted.
• Macarthur Williams v. State
  492 So. 2d 1051· Fla.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Williams for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that introduction of the particulars of his prior armed robbery conviction at trial was not unduly prejudicial. The Court clarified that when a prior conviction
• Haskell Edward Johnson v. United States
  356 F.2d 680· 8th Cir.· 1966-02-18 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied a fair trial and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on all counts.
• United States v. Gregg
  803 F.2d 568· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the government's filing of an information alleging prior felony convictions to seek an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act was proper and did not constitute an unlawful amendment to the indictment. The court also held that the evidence was su
• Wakaksan v. United States
  367 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1966-10-31 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of the confession, prior conviction evidence, and the prosecutor's closing argument remarks were not erroneous.
• United States v. Cathey
  591 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-02 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting a prior military conviction for impeachment purposes.
• United States v. Pennix
  313 F.2d 524· 4th Cir.· 1963-01-15 ·cited 60×
  The court held that cross-examination of a defendant regarding prior arrests, rather than convictions, is improper and prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
• Wallace v. A.L. Lockhart
  701 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the habeas corpus petition, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, lacked merit, or failed to demonstrate prejudice or a constitutional violation.
• Henry v. State
  948 So. 2d 609· Fla.· 2006-10-12 ·cited 56×
  John Ruthell Henry, sentenced to death for murdering his five-year-old stepson Eugene, appealed the denial of his postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that defense counsel's deliberate strategy of
• 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.
• Panzavecchia v. Louie L. Wainwright
  658 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 49×
  The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of a prior conviction, due to the denial of a severance motion, violated the petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Campbell v. Kincheloe
  829 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 48×
  The dissenting judge argues that the failure of Campbell's counsel to present mitigating circumstances at sentencing deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Henson
  486 F.2d 1292· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the omission of an immediate cautionary instruction regarding the limited purpose for admitting evidence of prior convictions was not harmless error.
• United States ex rel. Anthony Scoleri v. Banmiller
  310 F.2d 720· 3d Cir.· 1962-10-10 ·cited 46×
• United States v. DiVARCO
  484 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a false statement regarding the source of income on a tax return, even without an understatement of income, can constitute a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and that the admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes was not an abuse of discr
• United States v. Jones
  880 F.2d 55· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the admission of prior convictions and bad acts was proper, the denial of reopening evidence was within the trial court's discretion, joinder and severance of charges and defendants were appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Sammie Jud Dixon
  547 F.2d 1079· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the informant's prior convictions for impeachment purposes, and this error was not harmless.
• Atwell v. State OF Ark.
  426 F.2d 912· 8th Cir.· 1970-05-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding illegal arrest, coerced confession, and improper admission of prior conviction evidence did not rise to the level of federal constitutional violations reviewable by habeas corpus.
• Ivey v. State
  132 Fla. 36· Fla.· 1938-04-07 ·cited 42×
  James Ivey was convicted of second-degree murder for the unlawful killing of Henry Dorsey and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting multiple assignments of error regarding cross-examination questions, evidentiary rulings, den
• Burt Beavers v. A.L. Lockhart
  755 F.2d 657· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a habeas petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the consecutive sentencing decision on appeal warrants an evidentiary hearing, as the record did not demonstrate the trial judge exercised discretion in imposing consecut
• McCLAIN v. United States
  224 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that prior convictions for city ordinance violations are not admissible to impeach credibility or show intent, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict Margie Mae McClain of possession of contraband whiskey.
• United States v. Reeves
  730 F.2d 1189· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for continuance, suppressing evidence, admitting statements, denying individual voir dire, or denying severance, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• Burg v. United States
  406 F.2d 235· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-16 ·cited 36×
  The court concurred in the result, finding evidence of a prior criminal record was properly admitted under established rules.
• United States v. Powers
  572 F.2d 146· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-28 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the simultaneous receipt of three firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) constitutes a single offense due to statutory ambiguity, but affirmed convictions for the initial receipt of two firearms.
• United States v. Silva
  745 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to sever, refusing to disclose grand jury testimony, denying the motion to suppress firearms, or in its jury instructions. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Merrill
  484 F.2d 168· 8th Cir.· 1973-07-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for robbery and conspiracy were valid, and none of his challenges to the evidence or procedure warranted reversal.
• Britton v. State
  604 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-09-11 ·cited 33×
  Reginald Britton appeals convictions for delivery of cocaine, burglary of a dwelling, and battery on law enforcement officers. The court affirmed the cocaine delivery conviction but reversed the burglary and battery convictions due to improper cross-examination regarding his prio
• United States v. DuSHANE
  435 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding a knowing waiver of counsel based on affidavits and a presumption of regularity, requiring a remand for an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence from the hotel room search, findin
• Hendrick v. Strazzulla
  135 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1961-11-22 ·cited 32×
  A record of a witness's prior criminal conviction is admissible to impeach their credibility if the witness denies the conviction, regardless of whether the crime involves moral turpitude.
• United States v. Ortiz
  553 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-11 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior drug conviction for impeachment purposes and that the hearsay statements were admissible.
• United States v. Williams
  484 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that refusing to allow the defendant to show the reversal of his prior state court conviction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial, as it impacted his credibility.
• United States v. Modern Reed & Rattan Co., Inc.
  159 F.2d 656· 2d Cir.· 1947-01-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that presenting evidence of a prior conviction to the jury, even if the defense later introduces character evidence, is reversible error because it deprives the defendant of their right to choose whether to put their character at issue.
• Theron D. Howard, Jr. v. Risch
  959 So. 2d 308· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-05-11 ·cited 29×
  Howard appealed the trial court's dismissal of his automobile negligence action as a sanction for alleged fraud in discovery responses. The appellate court reversed, finding that the minimal evidence presented—primarily documents without live testimony—did not support the trial c
• Smith v. United States
  283 F.2d 16· 6th Cir.· 1960-08-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding impeachment testimony because no proper foundation was laid on cross-examination, and the proffered testimony was either unresponsive or did not demonstrate bias.
• United States v. Falco
  727 F.2d 659· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the admission of prior convictions was an abuse of discretion due to their minimal probative value and high prejudicial effect.
• United States v. Sims
  529 F.2d 10· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for distributing heroin and cocaine is affirmed, as the evidence was sufficient and the trial court did not err in its instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Wilson v. Wiman
  386 F.2d 968· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-11 ·cited 26×
• Lane v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  320 F.2d 179· 4th Cir.· 1963-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that informing the jury of a defendant's prior convictions at the outset of a trial, as part of the indictment, denies the defendant due process of law and a fair trial.
• Piassick v. United States
  253 F.2d 658· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a prior nolo contendere plea for impeachment purposes was improper and required reversal.
• Baker v. United States
  227 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1955-11-25 ·cited 26×
  Evidence of prior convictions is not admissible simply because the current charge does not require proof of specific intent.
• United States v. Powell
  498 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for transporting illegal aliens was supported by sufficient evidence, and that venue was established by waiver.
• Kelly v. State
  857 So. 2d 949· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-10-22 ·cited 24×
  Kelly was arrested near a burglary scene and made incriminating statements to police. At trial, the state impeached Kelly's credibility by introducing evidence of his prior convictions involving dishonesty under Florida's hearsay impeachment rule. The court affirmed the admission
• United States v. Huffhines
  967 F.2d 314· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a crime of violence under the 1989 amendment to Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.2, and that possession of a firearm silencer can constitute a crime of violence.
• United States v. Kord
  836 F.2d 368· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's conviction of Kord, flight evidence was properly admitted, and the identification procedure, while suggestive, was not unreliable. The court also held that Mangum's oral confession was voluntary and admissible, and his
• Parker v. State
  389 So. 2d 336· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-10-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a victim ducking to avoid gunfire demonstrates a well-founded fear of imminent bodily harm, and that the State may introduce a certified copy of a defendant's prior judgment and sentence to prove felon status, even if the defendant offers to stipulate.