Aiding And Abetting

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

• United States v. Serena Denise Nunn
  940 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a taped conversation containing an implicit threat to an informant was admissible as relevant evidence of conspiracy participation and not inadmissible 'other crimes' evidence, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Hughes
  940 F.2d 1125· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seizure of cocaine and a gun was permissible under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Hart v. Stagner
  935 F.2d 1007· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a habeas court need only examine relevant portions of the state court record for harmless error analysis of a defective jury instruction on aiding and abetting, not the entire record. It also held that extensive pretrial publicity did not violate the defendant
• United States v. Powell
  929 F.2d 724· D.C. Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the firearms charge because the government failed to prove the defendant knew to a practical certainty that his associate would be carrying a gun.
• United States v. Puzzo
  928 F.2d 1356· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that while some of the defendant's testimony was improperly excluded as hearsay, the error was harmless.
• United States v. Vijay Parekh
  926 F.2d 402· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Suraphan Tuangmaneeratmun
  925 F.2d 797· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court erred by failing to explain the effect of supervised release, this error was harmless because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The court also held that the district court was not required to explain the application
• United States v. Williams
  922 F.2d 578· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines to impose a sentence reflecting the seriousness of the defendant's extensive criminal history, as the criminal history category did not adequately reflect the defendant's past co
• United States v. van Helden
  920 F.2d 99· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions, viewed in totality, did not constitute reversible error, nor was there ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Darin Ray Goodrich
  919 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines based on the extent of the defendant's false declarations, as this factor was adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission.
• United States v. Thorn
  917 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and equity skimming, and that the exclusion of evidence of a witness's unrelated state indictment was not an abuse of discretion.
• Robin v. Arthur Young & Co.
  915 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter, a required element for aiding and abetting liability under federal securities laws.
• United States v. Vaden
  912 F.2d 780· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Vaden's convictions for conspiracy to violate an inmate's rights and for aiding and abetting assaults on an inmate and an officer.
• United States v. Noriega
  746 F. Supp. 1506· S.D. Fla.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the United States has jurisdiction over the alleged extraterritorial criminal activities of General Noriega, and that the RICO and Travel Act statutes apply to such conduct.
• United States v. Vernor
  902 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a father's custodial confessions implicating his son in a bank robbery did not violate the son's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, corroborated by other evidence.
• Crisel v. State
  561 So. 2d 453· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-18 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Elon Kevan Rowlee, II
  899 F.2d 1275· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the First Amendment does not protect speech used as an integral part of conduct violating a valid criminal statute, such as conspiracy to defraud the IRS or aiding in the submission of false tax documents.
• United States v. Williams
  894 F.2d 215· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw but not based on his inadequate Anders brief, and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be applied.
• United States v. Lambert
  887 F.2d 1568· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure to file a supporting affidavit for a search warrant does not invalidate the warrant if other evidence establishes its existence and contents, and that a defendant must show prejudice to warrant reversal for failure to give a requested jury instruct
• United States v. Stolfi
  889 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a 'multiple enterprise' instruction was not required for RICO charges when the evidence supported a single enterprise formed by the association of entities through racketeering activity, and that sufficient evidence existed for aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act
• United States v. Rosenberg
  888 F.2d 1406· D.C. Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 6×
  Prosecution for substantive offenses under the Pinkerton theory of vicarious liability is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause if the conspiracy conviction did not require proof of a fact not also required for the substantive offense conviction.
• United States v. Donahue
  885 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for the charge of transporting currency out of the United States without filing a report, as the offense began in Pennsylvania and was a continuing one.
• United States v. Corpus
  882 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that no due process violation occurred regarding the destruction of evidence.
• Q.E.R., Inc. v. Alva J. Dickerson
  880 F.2d 1178· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the defendant personally liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and for intentional interference with contract.
• Watts v. Bonneville
  879 F.2d 685· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that imposing two sentences for rape in concert did not violate due process, as the defendant aided and abetted two separate criminal acts. The court also held that a defective jury instruction regarding aiding and abetting was harmless error.
• United States v. Sidener
  876 F.2d 1334· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding recusal, double jeopardy, venue, and sufficiency of evidence lacked merit.
• United States v. Bratton
  875 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting wire fraud and possession of stolen property, and that the admission of impeachment evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Leavitt v. Vasquez
  875 F.2d 260· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was erroneous, the jury necessarily found the required intent, making the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Fryar
  867 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror for lying, denying motions for mistrial and new trial, or in excluding evidence and refusing to disclose an informant's identity.
• United States v. Manso-Portes
  867 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of "other acts" evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was proper, and the district court did not err in its sentencing or evidentiary rulings.
• Pilla v. United States
  861 F.2d 1078· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Pilla's role as a bank advisor, coupled with the bank's awareness of the transaction violations through his co-defendant, created a duty to report, and his guilty plea was voluntary.
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  An out-of-court statement offered to explain preliminary circumstances, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• United States v. Elusma
  849 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting the filing of false documents even if the principal is acquitted, provided the elements of aiding and abetting are met. The court also affirmed convictions for conspiracy and false filings, finding sufficient
• United States v. Abel A. Sandoval
  847 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on alleged jury prejudice or in rereading testimony.
• United States v. Silva
  846 F.2d 352· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' entrapment defense failed as a matter of law and that inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction. Substantial evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. McNATT
  842 F.2d 564· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to order a mistrial sua sponte and that the denial of severance was proper due to lack of substantiation.
• Campbell v. Fair
  838 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecution's conduct regarding a key witness or by the sufficiency of the evidence against petitioner Doherty.
• United States v. Buchanan
  830 F.2d 146· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 6×
  Consecutive sentences for manufacturing and possessing a single destructive device are improper as possession is incidental to manufacture, and the offenses merge for sentencing purposes. Consecutive sentences for aiding and abetting and conspiracy are permissible as they are dis
• United States v. Collazo
  815 F.2d 1138· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiring to receive and possess stolen checks and of aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of stolen checks.
• Smith v. State
  502 So. 2d 77· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of driving a getaway car, without more, is insufficient to prove aiding and abetting a burglary or robbery.
• United States v. Cartlidge
  808 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 6×
  Promises of protection, assurances of ability to provide protection, supplying information about timing, and accepting payment for these services, when coupled with silence and warnings, constitute sufficient evidence of an attempt to aid and abet a federal crime.
• United States v. Thompson
  807 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the admission of a homemade knife was proper, the restriction of cross-examination was justified, and the voir dire was adequate.
• Williams v. State
  492 So. 2d 1388· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-27 ·cited 6×
  Henry Williams Jr. appeals his convictions for burglary and probation violation, challenging the trial court's refusal to give special jury instructions on aiding and abetting liability and the validity of the sentencing departure from guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the
• Neal v. State
  492 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-08-07 ·cited 6×
  Ronnie Neal, a deputy sheriff convicted of burglary, grand theft, and accessory to shooting into an occupied dwelling, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and the imposition of a ten-year sentence departing from guidelines. The court affirmed
• United States v. Short
  790 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court would remand for further proceedings to determine the admissibility of the defendant's statements, finding the trial court did not have an adequate opportunity to rule on the issues.
• Premex v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  785 F.2d 1403· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Commission's revocation of Zack's registration was proper, but its imposition of a civil monetary penalty was not supported by sufficient evidence regarding the appropriateness and gravity of the violations.
• United States v. Skulsky
  786 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly denied defendants' request for an evidentiary hearing on the ex parte communication issue and that the indictment was not invalidated by the amendment to Rule 6(g).
• United States v. Vadaain David Dixon
  784 F.2d 855· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, nor was there insufficient evidence of dangerous weapon use or prejudicial error in the judge's questioning of a witness.
• Hyman v. Aiken
  777 F.2d 938· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the death penalty were erroneous because they allowed for its imposition on an aider and abettor without requiring a finding of intent to kill, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Flowers v. Tandy Corp.
  773 F.2d 585· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in submitting the case to the jury on theories of civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 or for aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping, as the evidence was insufficient and the statutes did not suppo