Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

1,106 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 13 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Duffy v. Foltz
  772 F.2d 1271· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The majority's holding that the prosecution must disprove the affirmative defense of insanity as a matter of constitutional law is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Hagler v. Callahan
  764 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jury instruction violating due process by relieving the state of its burden of proof on intent is not harmless error if intent was a disputed issue at trial.
• Tyreese Rowan v. Owens
  752 F.2d 1186· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove penetration beyond a reasonable doubt for the charge of criminal deviate conduct.
• United States v. Earline Brown
  716 F.2d 457· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's accounts were in tolerance after the transaction, a crucial element for conviction.
• United States v. Sherrie Diane Fraser
  709 F.2d 1556· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 6×
  Venue for trial was proper in the Middle District of Tennessee under 18 U.S.C. § 3238, and the district court did not err in admitting evidence or rejecting jury charges.
• Warren v. Byrne
  699 F.2d 95· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of criminal trespass charges did not preclude relitigation of the trespass issue in a civil case, and that the jury instructions regarding the burden of proof were proper.
• Williams v. Maggio
  695 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States ex rel. Theodore Ross v. Franzen
  688 F.2d 1181· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to submit a straight 'not guilty' verdict form to the jury violated the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Faggart Daniel Murr, III
  681 F.2d 246· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for mail fraud, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Millard C. Farmer, Jr. v. Strickland
  652 F.2d 427· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, holding that the attorney's contumacious conduct in the presence of the judge did not require a hearing before summary conviction and sentencing, and that his actions were not protected speech.
• United States v. Baker
  650 F.2d 936· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the bill was counterfeit and intended to defraud.
• United States v. Pine
  609 F.2d 106· 3d Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, did not deprive the appellant of his constitutional right to be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hamilton v. State
  363 So. 2d 580· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support an adjudication of indirect criminal contempt.
• Adirim v. City OF Miami
  348 So. 2d 1226· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-02 ·cited 6×
  Aaron Adirim appeals a criminal contempt conviction for violating an injunction against operating a waste collection business without a license in Miami. The appellate court reverses, finding the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adirim violated the in
• Washington v. Maggio
  540 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's failure to request or object to a jury instruction, when represented by counsel, bars assertion of constitutional error in a habeas corpus proceeding.
• United States v. Buffa
  527 F.2d 1164· 6th Cir.· 1975-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a jury instruction, while not perfectly clear, did not constitute plain error when considered with the entire charge and the overwhelming evidence.
• Rothschild v. State OF NEW York
  525 F.2d 686· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred by allowing cross-examination about the defendant's silence, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Miller v. State
  285 So. 2d 41· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-10-03 ·cited 6×
  The trial court erred by ruling that the documentary evidence constituted securities as a matter of law, thereby removing a crucial issue from the jury's determination.
• United States v. Jensen
  462 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1972-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to prove a conspiracy to rob the bank, and thus the conviction could not stand.
• Young v. State OF Md.
  455 F.2d 679· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the trenchcoat, even if illegally seized, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant admitted the act of intercourse and wearing the coat, and the coat's stains did not prejudice his defense.
• Childs v. Cardwell
  452 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 6×
  The Sixth Circuit held that the admission of hearsay testimony, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming eyewitness identification and the defendant's failure to object at trial.
• United States v. Laddie Smith
  450 F.2d 312· 3d Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if a pre-indictment identification procedure was improper, it was harmless error because the defendants' identities were not disputed at trial. Furthermore, a potentially prejudicial comment by the judge regarding sentencing was cured by a subsequent cura
• United States v. Evans
  447 F.2d 129· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seizure and search of the vehicle were lawful, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, rejecting claims of prejudice from a joint trial.
• In re Brown
  439 F.2d 47· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-23 ·cited 6×
• In the Interest of A. J.
  241 So. 2d 439· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-12-01 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court affirmed juvenile delinquency adjudication for stabbing a police officer, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding even under a reasonable doubt standard, and that Winship's jury trial requirement did not apply because Florida law permitted
• United States v. Robinson
  430 F.2d 1141· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the appellant's apartment was unlawful because the government failed to prove abandonment, and the admission of the seized hat into evidence was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Fang v. Elinor M. Hankins and William D. Emmons
  399 F.2d 262· C.C.P.A.· 1968-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove priority of invention beyond a reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice and utility.
• United States v. Ramseur
  378 F.2d 902· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that even if the search and seizure of the jacket were illegal, the admission of the jacket into evidence constituted harmless error because it did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
• United States v. Giulio Bruni
  359 F.2d 802· 7th Cir.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or denying the motion for a new trial.
• In re Holland Furnace Co.
  341 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1965-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Holland Furnace Company and certain officers (Paul T. Cheff, Alvin W. Klomparens, Richard J. Koerner) were guilty of criminal contempt for willfully violating a prior court order enforcing an FTC cease and desist order, while other directors and employees
• Hood v. United States
  326 F.2d 33· 5th Cir.· 1964-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant violated a specific order of the District Court, due to ambiguity in the court's orders.
• MacArtney v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
  253 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1958-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inadvertent use of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in supplementary jury instructions, and an incorrect definition of "defective" in relation to seaworthiness, did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal under the circumstances. Furtherm
• Jones v. United States
  231 F.2d 244· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a child's spontaneous declaration, without independent evidence of injury or the corpus delicti, is insufficient to support a conviction for indecent liberties with a minor.
• Kean v. Hurley
  179 F.2d 888· 8th Cir.· 1950-02-09 ·cited 6×
  A court lacks jurisdiction to hold non-parties in contempt for violating an injunction when they were not named in the suit, did not act in concert with named parties, and did not receive actual notice.
• Winkelmann v. Calvert
  129 F.2d 536· C.C.P.A.· 1942-06-15 ·cited 6×
  Priority of invention was properly awarded to Calvert for most counts because the evidence strongly indicated he surreptitiously disclosed his work to Winkelmann's assignee. The court reversed the award of priority for certain counts to Winkelmann.
• Osorio v. State
  186 So. 3d 601· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-03-02 ·cited 5×
  Kevin Osorio appeals his convictions for cannabis possession, drug paraphernalia possession, and GBL trafficking. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed for a new trial, finding three reversible errors: the trial court's exclusion of the confidential informant's statements
• B.J.M. v. State
  185 So. 3d 692· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-02-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the victim's testimony regarding damages, based on inadmissible estimates, was insufficient to prove the element of damage amount for first-degree misdemeanor criminal mischief.
• Tate v. State
  136 So. 3d 624· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-11-08 ·cited 5×
  Eric Tate appeals his convictions for felony murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of a two-and-a-half-year-old child. The appellate court affirms the convictions, holding that the State presented competent, substantial evidence of inflicted injury inconsistent with Tate
• United States v. O'Brien
  1st Cir.· 2010-05-24 ·cited 5×
  The Court should overrule McMillan v. Pennsylvania, which incorrectly distinguished between sentencing factors and elements of an offense when those factors increase a defendant's punishment.
• Hoffman v. State
  842 So. 2d 895· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-02-12 ·cited 5×
  Judy Hoffman appeals her conviction for violating an injunction for protection, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence. The Florida appellate court agrees and reverses, finding the State failed to prove both alleged violations beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Garcia v. State
  800 So. 2d 725· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-12-05 ·cited 5×
  Roberto Jesus Garcia appealed convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and felony driving with a suspended license. The court affirmed the firearm conviction but reversed the felony driving conviction because the State failed to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonab
• Soukup v. State
  760 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-06-23 ·cited 5×
  Stephen Soukup was convicted of sexual battery of a physically incapacitated person, lewd acts in the presence of children, and providing alcohol to minors. The appellate court reversed the sexual battery conviction, finding insufficient evidence that the victim lacked consent or
• Moore v. State
  473 So. 2d 686· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-12-12 ·cited 5×
  A conviction cannot be sustained solely upon recanted grand jury testimony of witnesses who admitted to perjury, absent corroborating evidence.
• Davis v. State
  438 So. 2d 973· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-10-07 ·cited 5×
  Billy James Davis was convicted of uttering a forged instrument after a bank teller became suspicious of a transaction involving his stolen driver's license and a forged check. The court reversed the conviction because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Davi
• United States v. Cifarelli
  589 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on probable cause and adequate showing of other investigative procedures, and that the admission of a codefendant's statement, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Camden James Stukins v. State
  418 So. 3d 168· Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-08-13 ·cited 4×
  A lay witness who did not personally observe an event may not testify to an opinion about that event unless the opinion is based on the witness's personal perceptions and does not require special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. The lead detective's lay opinion that the
• Netrievae White v. State
  183 So. 3d 1168· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-01-06 ·cited 4×
  Netrievae White was convicted of sexual battery of a minor, a capital felony requiring proof that the defendant was 18 or older. The appellate court reversed because the State failed to present any testimonial or documentary evidence of White's age at trial, relying only on the j
• Pewo v. State
  177 So. 3d 32· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the standard jury instruction on insanity does not improperly raise the defense's burden of proof from clear and convincing evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Tukes v. State
  115 So. 3d 1014· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-02-13 ·cited 4×
  Damian Tukes appealed the summary denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his 2004 robbery with a firearm conviction on the ground that jury instructions failed to require proof of the firearm element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
• O'Brien v. State
  56 So. 3d 884· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-03-16 ·cited 4×
  Kenneth James O'Brien appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child, challenging the admission of his confession obtained after he invoked his right to counsel. The First District Court of Appeal reversed his convictions, finding that law enforcement violated the Edwards