Aiding And Abetting

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

• United States v. Ayotte
  385 F.2d 988· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to permit the District Judge to find the appellants guilty of conspiracy to conceal and of concealing assets belonging to a bankrupt estate.
• Hill v. United States
  379 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant had possession of the marihuana, which is necessary to rely on the statutory presumption of knowledge of illegal importation.
• Moore v. State
  186 So. 2d 56· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-03-08 ·cited 14×
  Moore was convicted of first-degree murder as an aider and abettor in a shooting death. The Florida appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the trial judge committed prejudicial error by informing the jury immediately before closing arguments that Moore's co-defenda
• United States v. Brown
  335 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1964-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of stolen securities and conspiracy were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and substantive claims lacked merit.
• Kaufman v. United States
  325 F.2d 305· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the issue of bail reduction was not properly raised on appeal and that the evidence supported the guilty verdict against Edwards for bank robbery, as co-defendants' use of guns was attributable to him.
• United States v. Aleazur Burrell
  324 F.2d 115· 7th Cir.· 1963-10-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and rejected various claims of error, including insufficient evidence, illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and erroneous jury instructions.
• Ali Diler Simsirdag v. United States
  315 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government to reopen its case to introduce seized marihuana into evidence.
• United States v. Carlucci
  288 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 14×
• Smyly v. United States
  287 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1961-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant waived the issue of corroboration of her extra-judicial admissions by failing to raise it properly before the trial court.
• United States v. Russo
  284 F.2d 539· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conviction for transporting and conspiring to transport obscene films in interstate commerce, and that any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Sober
  281 F.2d 244· 3d Cir.· 1960-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecutor's summation remarks, while vigorous, were not unduly prejudicial and were supported by the evidence, thus not depriving the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Fromen
  265 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1959-04-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for mail fraud and aiding and abetting bank officer misapplication, and that the jury instructions were not prejudicially erroneous.
• Massicot v. United States
  254 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-07 ·cited 14×
• Shepherd v. United States
  244 F.2d 750· D.C. Cir.· 1956-10-18 ·cited 14×
  The denial of the motion to suppress illegally seized evidence was prejudicial error requiring reversal of convictions.
• Scott v. United States
  232 F.2d 362· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery, as it did not eliminate reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's participation.
• Dalton v. State
  42 So.2d 174· Fla.· 1949-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed the convictions of two brothers for first-degree murder. The court found that their confessions were admissible and that the trial judge did not err in refusing certain jury instructions.
• Barker v. The State of Flor'da
  76 Fla. 164· Fla.· 1918-08-02 ·cited 14×
  Milton Barker, Charlotte Barker, and Silas Oats were convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. On writ of error, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the indictment legally sufficient and rejecting challenges that it was vague or embarrassing to the d
• Stokes v. State
  54 Fla. 109· Fla.· 1907-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court's jury instruction on premeditation was erroneous because it equated "premeditated design to kill" with a mere "intent to kill," thereby lowering the legal standard for first-degree
• Coquina Invs. v. TD Bank, N.A.
  760 F.3d 1300· 11th Cir.· 2014-07-29 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict for Coquina Investments on claims of aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme and fraudulent misrepresentation. The court found that TD Bank's arguments regarding evidentiary rulings, damages, and
• Jarod Theophile v. State
  78 So. 3d 574· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-09-21 ·cited 13×
  Jarod Theophile was convicted of robbery with a firearm as a principal based on aiding and abetting two co-defendants. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for discharge, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Theophile a
• United States v. MMR Corp. (LA) & James B. Rutland
  907 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants of conspiracy to rig bids and mail fraud, and that MMR's alleged inability to bid did not preclude liability under the Sherman Act.
• Sanders v. State
  563 So. 2d 781· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-06-19 ·cited 13×
  Timothy Sanders was convicted of possession and purchase/sale/delivery of cocaine after briefly holding and looking at a cocaine packet during an undercover drug sting. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support conviction for either aiding
• United States v. Roberson
  897 F.2d 1092· 11th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction on Count 2, the denial of the motion to suppress for Count 4 was proper, and procedural errors were harmless. However, the forfeiture of substitute property was improperly valued.
• United States v. Cannistraro
  871 F.2d 1210· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that Local Rule 35C.1 does not violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive bail prohibition, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to potential misinterpretation of sentencing statistics.
• United States v. Stone
  866 F.2d 359· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search, including the dog's entry into the hatchback, was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the lawful seizure of narcotics.
• United States v. John Garcia (86-6110)
  866 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the search of Garcia's luggage was consensual and that the evidence was sufficient to convict Wolfe, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Gallo
  863 F.2d 185· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed all judgments of conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or procedural matters.
• Clifford v. State
  518 So. 2d 983· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-01-22 ·cited 13×
  Michael Clifford appealed his convictions for attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping, and two counts of sexual battery, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress his confession. The Florida appellate court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing, finding th
• United States v. Thurston
  771 F.2d 449· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the identification procedures and admission of motive evidence were not erroneous.
• United States v. Atwell
  766 F.2d 416· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination, admitting evidence of uncharged crimes, and that no Brady violation occurred as the issue was not preserved.
• United States v. Graham
  758 F.2d 879· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants' challenges to the jury instructions and the judge's handling of a juror's holiday request were not preserved for appeal due to a lack of timely objection.
• Hinman v. McCARTHY
  676 F.2d 343· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the use of federal magistrates to conduct evidentiary hearings and make recommendations in habeas corpus proceedings is constitutional, and that the admission of Hinman's statement, obtained in violation of Miranda, was not harmless error beyond a reasonable d
• United States v. Canas
  595 F.2d 73· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 13×
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct, duplicity in the indictment, and jury instructions did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• Elanor Burbank McBRIDE v. State
  338 So. 2d 567· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-10-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for robbery, and the trial court abused its discretion by denying motions for a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct.
• United States v. Houle
  490 F.2d 167· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that knowledge of the interstate nature of goods is an element of conspiracy, and its omission from jury instructions constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conspiracy conviction, but not the substantive conviction.
• Ferguson v. State
  158 Fla. 345· Fla.· 1946-12-10 ·cited 13×
  Joe Ferguson and James Andrew Maxwell were convicted of rape following a three-count indictment that alternatively charged each as principal in the first degree or principal in the second degree. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments regarding
• Land v. Sheriff of Jackson Cnty. Fla.
  85 F.4th 1121· 11th Cir.· 2023-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Deputy Allen is entitled to qualified immunity because the affidavit, even excluding misstatements, provided probable cause for Land's arrest, and thus Land's Fourth Amendment claim fails.
• Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh
  598 U.S. 471· U.S.· 2023-05-18 ·cited 12×
  The Supreme Court held that families of victims of a 2017 ISIS terrorist attack in Istanbul could not sue social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, and Google) for aiding and abetting the attack under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, because the plaintiffs failed t
• Maricela Fonseca and Richard Fonseca v. Taverna Imports, Inc.
  212 So. 3d 431· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-01-04 ·cited 12×
  This consolidated appeal involves two related cases arising from a dispute over control of Taverna Imports, a wine distribution company. The court affirmed most judgments in Case One (awarding $1,063,234 to Taverna Imports and $833,000 to Mario Taverna against the Fonsecas and ot
• Belser v. State
  854 So. 2d 223· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The trial court erred in denying the request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of battery, as evidence supported such a charge.
• D.M. v. State
  714 So. 2d 1117· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-07-15 ·cited 12×
  D.M., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell based on surveillance of hand-to-hand drug transactions. The appellate court affirmed the sale conviction but reversed the possession conviction, holding that aiding and
• United States v. Vea-Gonzales
  986 F.2d 321· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 12×
  A prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) qualifies as a predicate offense for career offender status. However, a defendant has a constitutional right to collaterally attack prior convictions used for sentence enhancement at the sentencing hearing.
• United States v. Lancaster
  968 F.2d 1250· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence, holding that the district court erred in aggregating drug quantities from crack house offenses under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) for sentencing on the distribution charge.
• United States v. ALL Star Indus.
  962 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury under the per se rule for price fixing and in ordering restitution, affirming the convictions.
• W.O. Akin v. Q-L Invs., Inc.
  959 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on all claims and striking all affidavits, as genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the accountants' knowledge, reliance, and potential aiding and abetting liability.
• United States v. McCARTHY
  961 F.2d 972· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excusing jurors for cause, admitting co-conspirator statements, admitting a telephone conversation, refusing to send cocaine packaging to the jury, determining the base offense level, adjusting for leadership role, or adjusting f
• United States v. Salazar
  958 F.2d 1285· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Ramos' convictions and reversed the district court's acquittal of Salazar, reinstating the jury verdict against her.
• United States v. Tejada
  956 F.2d 1256· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-21 ·cited 12×
  Sentencing judges may consider illegally seized evidence unless it was obtained expressly to enhance the sentence. The scope of a drug conspiracy for sentencing purposes is determined by the amount agreed upon, not the amount actually delivered.
• United States v. Fuentes
  954 F.2d 151· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 12×
  A defendant's offense level may not be increased under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for being a manager or supervisor unless there is evidence that the defendant managed or supervised at least one other person.
• United States v. Johnson
  952 F.2d 565· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the FISA surveillance was lawful, the prosecution's opening statement and admitted evidence were not unfairly prejudicial, and the indictment and evidence for Count Three were sufficient. The court also rejected the F