Aiding And Abetting

3,842 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• United States v. Gillette
  189 F.2d 449· 2d Cir.· 1951-04-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, required the jury to find that the defendant aided and abetted the transportation of counterfeit checks in Manhattan, and thus the jury must have believed the testimony implicating the defendant in that act.
• Lucas v. United States
  158 F.2d 865· 4th Cir.· 1946-12-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence is proper only if the judgment is void on its face, and the indictment here was not void.
• Kelley v. State
  79 Fla. 182· Fla.· 1920-03-01 ·cited 28×
  Charles Kelley was convicted of murder in the second degree for allegedly aiding and abetting his son Russell in killing Andrew Register, while Russell was acquitted. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that if Russell killed Register in lawful self-defense
• RAS v. State
  610 So. 2d 24· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-11-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for trafficking in cocaine by possession, as the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of the cocaine.
• United States v. Farmer
  923 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not bar retrial after a mistrial, the district court had jurisdiction to proceed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and the sentencing appeal was moot.
• United States v. Hopkins
  916 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, concealment, misapplication, and false entries, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or admitting evidence of a prior bad act.
• United States v. Smith
  893 F.2d 1573· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a calendar/drug ledger was admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because the government established it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and its author was reasonably certain. Other arguments regarding the
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Turtur
  892 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that summary judgment enforcing the indemnity agreements was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether these agreements were part of an overall contract induced by fraud. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on
• Wilson v. Saintine Exploration & Drilling Corp. & the Est. of Robert D.P. Welch
  872 F.2d 1124· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 27×
  A firm that merely mails offering materials at the request of others, without soliciting sales for financial gain, cannot be held liable under Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
• United States v. Carbone
  798 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the admission of authenticated and enhanced tape recordings and the use of transcripts as a jury aid were not an abuse of discretion, and that the denial of a post-trial hearing on alleged perjury was proper.
• United States v. Rupert Earl McCLENDON
  782 F.2d 785· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional peremptory challenges, restoring a passed peremptory challenge, excluding defendants from in-chambers voir dire due to waiver, denying a motion to substitute counsel, or in convicting McClendon
• United States v. Mitchell
  777 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance, as defendants failed to show prejudice or that the denial obstructed justice. The court also found the RICO enterprise was adequately defined and proven.
• United States v. Carl E. Banks & Arthester McCruiston
  687 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the admissibility of prior convictions for appeal by not obtaining a definitive ruling from the trial court. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the voir dire or denying sev
• United States v. Swinehart
  617 F.2d 336· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 27×
  The court should decline to consider the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding drug and alcohol use by trial counsel to allow for full consideration in a section 2255 proceeding.
• United States v. Willis
  559 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 27×
  A person can be found guilty of aiding and abetting bank robbery even if their knowledge of the robbery occurred only after the physical taking, as long as they participated in the escape phase.
• United States v. Anderson
  542 F.2d 428· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the wiretap evidence was admissible as the affidavit sufficiently complied with statutory exhaustion requirements and did not contain intentionally false statements, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Gokey but insufficient to convict Crews.
• United States v. Feldman
  535 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-05 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the affidavits supporting the wiretap order satisfied statutory requirements, including the necessity of exploring alternative investigative techniques and establishing probable cause, and that the relevant statutes are constitutional.
• Dupree v. State
  125 Fla. 58· Fla.· 1936-07-27 ·cited 27×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a motion to postpone the trial. The court found that even if the denial was error, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Alvarado-Linares v. United States
  44 F.4th 1334· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that murder and attempted murder under the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (VICAR), when predicated on Georgia malice murder and attempted murder statutes, qualify as 'crimes of violence' under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).
• Henderson v. State
  679 So. 2d 805· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-07-31 ·cited 26×
  Darryl Henderson appeals his conviction for two counts of robbery with a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in conducting jury challenges at sidebar without his presence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that sufficient
• K.O. v. State
  673 So. 2d 47· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the delinquency adjudication for burglary of a conveyance under an aiding and abetting theory, and thus the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was proper.
• Evans v. State
  643 So. 2d 1204· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the appellant aided or abetted the commission of shooting into a building and criminal mischief.
• United States v. Hilario Mendoza-Salgado
  964 F.2d 993· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from Garcia's residence and that sufficient evidence supported Mendoza's conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Horst Werner Joetzki
  952 F.2d 1090· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions but vacated Gisner's sentence, remanding for resentencing because the district court failed to expressly order consecutive sentences as required by statute when the total punishment exceeded the statutory maximum for the individual counts.
• United States v. Reiswitz
  941 F.2d 488· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the inclusion of a state robbery as an overt act in a federal conspiracy indictment was permissible and that the jury instructions on conspiracy and aiding and abetting were proper.
• United States v. Scroggins
  939 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Rehal
  940 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the joinder of conspiracy and substantive drug distribution charges was proper, and that sentencing enhancements for abuse of public trust and obstruction of justice were warranted.
• United States v. Kelley
  929 F.2d 582· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for bank fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, and that a new trial was not warranted. The restitution order was reversed due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's ability to pay.
• United States v. Foley
  906 F.2d 1261· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the defendant negotiated for a future sale of cocaine was clearly erroneous, and thus the amount from that alleged negotiation should not have been included in calculating her Base Offense Level.
• United States v. Lopez
  885 F.2d 1428· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the erroneous jury instruction regarding aiding escape was harmless error because the jury's findings necessarily supported the conviction.
• United States v. Schnejer Zalman Gurary
  860 F.2d 521· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of intent to violate tax laws and upholding the trial court's jury instructions and Speedy Trial Act rulings.
• United States v. Carlo Palella
  846 F.2d 977· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, the heroin evidence was admissible despite a less-than-perfect chain of custody, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the court found errors in sentencing due to the misapplica
• United States v. Wexler
  838 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Wexler's knowledge of the conspiracy's unlawful purpose (distribution of hashish) or his intent to aid in that specific crime.
• Bosco v. Serhant
  836 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was not liable for failing to enforce its rules because its interpretation was not in bad faith, and that the plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim failed due to lack of evidence. The court also found the jury's damage award, th
• United States v. Manotas-Mejia
  824 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed convictions for distributing and importing cocaine and conspiracy, but remanded for a new sentencing hearing for one defendant due to procedural errors.
• Willard v. People of the State OF Cal.
  812 F.2d 461· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on aiding and abetting, while incorrect under state law, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not violate federal due process. The court also declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim as it was not r
• United States v. Silvio Perez Rodriguez
  812 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for aiding and abetting mail obstruction, forgery, and uttering, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
• United States v. Valles-Valencia
  811 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.
• United States v. Morales-Quinones
  812 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment, admitting prior conviction evidence, admitting hearsay, or in its rulings on the witness's silence and credibility.
• United States v. Spitler
  800 F.2d 1267· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for severance and mistrial, as the defendants failed to demonstrate sufficiently irreconcilable defenses or actual prejudice from a joint trial. The court also affirmed Carpenter's extortion co
• United States v. Amend
  791 F.2d 1120· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction for continuing criminal enterprise but vacated forfeiture orders based on a general jury finding, affirming forfeiture of specifically identified assets.
• United States v. Driver
  776 F.2d 807· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the warrantless entry into the warehouse was not justified by exigent circumstances, but the subsequent search warrant may be valid if based on independent evidence untainted by the illegal entry.
• United States v. Huber
  772 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 26×
  The admission of an out-of-court statement by a coconspirator violated the Confrontation Clause and was not harmless error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Nelda Karen Colwell
  764 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting unlawful procurement of false birth documents.
• United States v. Quinones
  758 F.2d 40· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 26×
  The Omnibus Crime Control Act applies to Puerto Rico, and evidence admissible under federal law cannot be excluded because it would be inadmissible under Puerto Rico law.
• United States v. Afflerbach
  754 F.2d 866· 10th Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge argues that defendants were improperly sentenced under a general statute when a more specific statute applied, violating the rule of statutory construction.
• Greenfield v. Heublein, Inc.
  742 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a corporation making a voluntary statement about stock activity, even without a duty to disclose, must ensure the statement is not false or misleading, and has a duty to update it if it becomes materially inaccurate due to subsequent events.
• United States v. Stephenson
  708 F.2d 580· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or severance rulings.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  706 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing a key defense witness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, in refusing to admit certain statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 804, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Mastropieri
  685 F.2d 776· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government's investigation, while not a model, was sufficient to support the convictions for tax evasion and related offenses, and that the 'likely source' rule does not require proof of a likely source if all reasonable non-taxable sources are negated.