Aiding And Abetting

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

• United States v. Campione
  942 F.2d 429· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions for RICO conspiracy and Travel Act violations, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting defendants' procedural and instructional challenges.
• Rouse v. State
  583 So. 2d 1111· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, as he aided and abetted the transaction and participated in prearrangement.
• United States v. Blaine A. White
  936 F.2d 1326· D.C. Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar the relitigation of the defendant's knowledge of the alien's true identity, and double jeopardy does not bar the prosecution of the second indictment.
• United States v. DiPIETRO
  936 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 8×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial when a mistrial is declared sua sponte due to government error, if the defendant fails to object and thereby effectively consents to the mistrial.
• United States v. Rosen
  929 F.2d 839· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant was accountable for the full quantity of marijuana knowingly accepted, and that the district court did not err in denying suppression motions or dismissing the indictment for outrageous conduct.
• United States v. GAF Corp.
  928 F.2d 1253· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 8×
  Bills of particulars are not inadmissible per se, but their admission as evidence is exceptional and requires compelling circumstances.
• United States v. Dwayne E. Head (90-3288)
  927 F.2d 1361· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to give a limiting instruction regarding firearms evidence was not prejudicial error, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to insufficient articulation of reasons for the upward departure.
• United States v. Horton
  921 F.2d 540· 4th Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly instructed the jury on aiding and abetting, and that the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict was not violated. The court also found no prejudice from the limited time allotted for argument on the supplemental instruction.
• Feltman v. Prudential Bache Securities
  122 B.R. 466· S.D. Fla.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that neither the bankruptcy trustee nor the creditors' committee has standing to bring claims that belong to specific creditors of the estate, particularly when the alleged injuries to the debtor corporations are illusory or derivative of the creditors' injuries.
• United States v. Haney
  914 F.2d 602· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the joinder of indictments and the admission of evidence of a prior Georgia robbery were proper.
• United States v. Plache
  913 F.2d 1375· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to exclude a juror for cause, denying motions to sever, and denying motions to exclude evidence under the attorney-client privilege, and that the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convicti
• United States v. Chorman
  910 F.2d 102· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and substantive offenses, but vacated the imposition of fines and remanded for the district court to make requisite factual findings.
• United States v. Delecia Hinton
  908 F.2d 355· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish entrapment as a matter of law because the evidence showed she was predisposed to commit the crime.
• United States v. Bejasa
  904 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant received a fair trial despite claims of denied witness access, delayed disclosure of impeachment material, and judicial misconduct, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Noble Lee Simpson
  901 F.2d 1223· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentence was improperly enhanced due to procedural non-compliance by the government.
• United States v. Salerno
  902 F.2d 1429· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the defendants acted with the specific intent to defraud the government of tax revenue, which is required for a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
• Saffor v. State
  558 So. 2d 69· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state presented sufficient evidence to contradict the defendant's theory of innocence, thus allowing the case to go to the jury.
• Grosvenor Props. Ltd. v. Southmark Corp.
  896 F.2d 1149· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Southmark waived objections to jury instructions due to insufficient specificity and that a corporate officer acting within the scope of employment is not personally liable for the corporation's breach of fiduciary duty under Canadian or California law.
• United States v. Munoz
  894 F.2d 292· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to sever the trial and did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search, as exigent circumstances justified the entry.
• W.B. v. State
  554 So. 2d 577· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-19 ·cited 8×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for aiding and abetting in the theft of an automobile based solely on his presence at the scene. The appellate court reversed, holding that presence, knowledge of the crime, and flight from police are insufficient to establish the criminal in
• United States v. Lara
  891 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for severance or the motion for judgment of acquittal, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Willis
  890 F.2d 1099· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to suppress, for acquittal, or in its jury instructions, and that the admission of rebuttal evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Clement A. Abadie, Jr.
  879 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient probable cause for arrest and search, admissible evidence, and adequate proof for conspiracy, possession, and Travel Act violations.
• United States v. Rigdon
  874 F.2d 774· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction for failure to file cash transaction reports (CTRs) and concealing material facts, but reversed the conviction for intentionally concealing material facts on Count IV due to a lack of affirmative concealment.
• United States v. Cooper
  873 F.2d 269· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict against Hunter, and the detention of Cooper's luggage was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
• Peterson v. State
  542 So. 2d 417· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-04-19 ·cited 8×
  James Peterson appealed his convictions for seven felonies, challenging primarily the propriety of a display of firearm conviction and the charge for escape. The court reversed the display of firearm conviction as duplicative under double jeopardy principles and reversed the esca
• United States v. Rankin
  870 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated offenses for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the district court erred in dismissing these counts.
• United States v. Portac, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants, the charges were properly joined, and no reversible errors occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Hernandez-Beltran
  867 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute 16 ounces and 1 gram of heroin, but insufficient for the 1-ounce conviction. The court also affirmed the mandatory minimum sentence imposed.
• United States v. Emigdio Angulo
  864 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions and the order to reimburse the government for court-appointed attorney fees, finding no reversible error or plain error.
• United States v. Perlie Donald Workman
  860 F.2d 140· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The admission of a deceased witness's recorded statement, voluntarily given to an FBI agent with his attorney present, is permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) as a statement against interest with sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, and does not violate the S
• Albert "Buddy" Croft v. State
  528 So. 2d 1279· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-07-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence of an ambiguous statement was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant aided and abetted his companion's burglary with intent to commit false imprisonment. However, the evidence was sufficient to support a
• C.E. Carlson, Inc. v. Sec. Exch. Comm'n
  859 F.2d 1429· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the SEC's sanctions, holding that petitioners violated federal securities laws by artificially closing a part-or-none offering through sham transactions designed to avoid refunding investor funds.
• United States v. Gildardo F. Acevedo
  842 F.2d 502· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for pre-indictment delay, denying a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, refusing to define 'constructive distribution,' or in its use of the verdict sheet.
• United States v. Richie Abner
  825 F.2d 835· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Richie Abner did not suffer from ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney's conflict of interest did not have an adverse effect on his defense, as the charges against Richie were unrelated to the bankruptcy proceedings where the conflict arose.
• United States v. Griffin
  814 F.2d 806· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) occurs where the aiding or assisting acts take place, not where the principal offense occurred, thus the indictment was improperly returned in West Virginia.
• United States v. Chavez
  812 F.2d 1295· 10th Cir.· 1987-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the garage, the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the subsequent pat-down search were all lawful, supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
• United States v. White
  788 F.2d 390· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's petition for rehearing should be denied because no substantial error affecting the outcome of the trial was committed.
• United States v. Stozek
  783 F.2d 891· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of misapplication of bank funds, and the indictment was sufficient.
• Clarissa Marsh v. Richardson
  781 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement, even if redacted, violated the Confrontation Clause because it was powerfully incriminating and vital to the prosecution's case against the defendant, creating a substantial risk the jury considered it.
• United States v. Kalish
  780 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prior acquittal on conspiracy charges does not necessarily preclude a subsequent conviction for substantive offenses or aiding and abetting, especially when the jury's verdict in the prior trial did not necessarily resolve the specific facts at issue in the
• United States v. Arocena
  778 F.2d 943· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-03 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding a defective jury instruction, improper joinder of counts, and insufficient evidence.
• C.L.A. v. State
  478 So. 2d 872· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-11-20 ·cited 8×
  Court affirmed juvenile's adjudication for aiding and abetting grand theft, holding that circumstantial evidence of acting as a 'spotter' to distract store clerk and watch for observers was sufficient to establish intent to participate and render assistance.
• United States v. Matlock
  773 F.2d 227· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a coconspirator's statement was admissible and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug distribution.
• United States v. Schultz
  769 F.2d 431· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting, as the omission was not prejudicial and defense counsel's failure to request it was likely a tactical decision.
• United States v. Chitty
  760 F.2d 425· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the conviction was valid, the sentence was tainted by the use of statements made during a court-ordered psychiatric examination without proper warnings, violating Fifth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Lehman
  756 F.2d 725· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's refusal to disclose footprint photograph reports did not constitute a Brady violation because the evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial.
• United States v. Johnson
  741 F.2d 1338· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The amendment of an indictment to correct a misstatement of the bank's insurer from FDIC to FSLIC was a matter of form and thus proper, as it did not prejudice the defendant's defense or raise double jeopardy concerns.
• United States v. del Prado-Montero
  740 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and that their sentences and the seizure of the vessel were valid.
• United States v. Gray
  730 F.2d 733· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a prosecutor's good-faith opening statement remark, even if later excluded, does not constitute reversible error if made with a reasonable belief in admissibility. It also held that limiting cross-examination on collateral matters is within the trial judge's d