Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

1,099 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• United States v. Corn
  956 F.2d 135· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the prosecution disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the sentencing enhancements were proper.
• United States v. Robinson
  953 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The supplemental Allen charge did not coerce the jury into convicting the defendant.
• Fitzgerald v. Thompson
  943 F.2d 463· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, finding no error in the conviction or sentencing.
• United States v. McClelland
  941 F.2d 999· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury that inducement is an essential element of extortion under the Hobbs Act constitutes fundamental error, and that the decision in United States v. Aguon II is fully retroactive.
• United States v. Mulheren
  938 F.2d 364· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the sole purpose of manipulating the stock price, reversing the convictions.
• Mata v. Ricketts
  937 F.2d 467· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, habeas corpus relief is denied.
• United States v. Lujan
  936 F.2d 406· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to suppress wiretap evidence, sever counts, admit certain testimony, strike an overt act, or furnish the trial transcript to the jury. However, a technical violation of Rule 32(c)(3)(D) occurred.
• United States v. DOE
  921 F.2d 340· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute, and that the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines was not appealable.
• Times v. State
  563 So. 2d 1113· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-07-03 ·cited 2×
  Affirmed conviction for grand theft where any error in admitting police testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the defendant's incriminating statements, possession of the credit card used in the theft, identification evidence, and lack of exonerating evidence.
• Gatlin v. State
  556 So. 2d 772· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-02-08 ·cited 2×
  Willie Gatlin appealed his cocaine possession conviction, challenging jury instructions on permissive presumptions regarding knowledge of drug possession. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the instruction using permissive language ('may infer') did not create an
• United States v. Reb'll
  878 F.2d 298· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant was sufficiently identified and that there was sufficient evidence of property loss exceeding $100, and the admission of videotapes was not plain error.
• Smart v. Leeke
  873 F.2d 1558· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the burden of persuasion for self-defense, as defined by South Carolina law, cannot constitutionally be placed on the defendant because it negates an element of the crime rather than being an affirmative defense.
• In the Interest of F.W.B. v. State
  538 So. 2d 969· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-22 ·cited 2×
  A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for stealing a radio based on circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed, finding no evidence that the appellant rather than three other delivery boys stole the radio, nor that he exclusi
• Allen v. Redman
  858 F.2d 1194· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that because sanity is not an element of the charged offenses under Michigan law, the petitioner's claims regarding the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions on sanity do not present cognizable constitutional grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Smart v. Leeke
  856 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant in a South Carolina murder trial violated due process because self-defense is an element of murder in South Carolina, which the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Freidin
  849 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a memorandum was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) because it was not shown to have been made pursuant to a regular practice of the business, even if it possessed indicia of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Finch
  842 F.2d 201· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 2×
• Moeller v. The Attorney Gen. OF the State OF S.D. & Jerry Parkinson
  838 F.2d 309· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to find the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his entrapment defense.
• McCANDLESS v. Beyer
  835 F.2d 58· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the permissive presumption statute N.J.S.A. 2C:39-2b, which allows a jury to presume the absence of a carrying permit from possession of a firearm, does not violate due process because there is a rational connection between the basic and ultimate facts presume
• Murphy v. Sowders
  801 F.2d 205· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the retroactive repeal of a rule requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, when applied to a defendant whose crime occurred before the repeal, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• Roscoe Cotton v. Armontrout
  784 F.2d 320· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that suggestive pretrial identification procedures did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, and the jury was adequately instructed on eyewitness identification.
• Dirk v. State
  479 So. 2d 265· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-12-05 ·cited 2×
  Gary Marshall Dirk appeals his convictions for burglary with assault, robbery, sexual battery, battery on a law enforcement officer, and burglary across three separate proceedings. The court affirms the convictions but reverses the sentences because the trial court relied on lega
• Taylor v. State
  446 So. 2d 213· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-02-29 ·cited 2×
  Taylor was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, but the appellate court reversed because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove each element of the burglary offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found critical gaps in the proof, including no evidence that
• A.M., III v. State
  440 So. 2d 478· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-04 ·cited 2×
  A.M., III, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for burglary based on circumstantial evidence and inadmissible hearsay testimony. The court reversed, finding the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
• THE Fla. BAR. In re Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.130 (Bail Bond)
  436 So. 2d 60· Fla.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted amended and new Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.130, 3.131, and 3.132 governing bail and pretrial release, implementing a 1982 constitutional amendment to article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution and section 907.041 of the Florida Statutes
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Ralston Greene
  712 F.2d 824· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no merit in the argument that the decision would improperly chill police conduct.
• Brown v. Warden, Great Meadow Correctional Facility
  682 F.2d 348· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that New York's requirement for the prosecution to prove a defendant's mental competency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence satisfies due process.
• Anderson v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  670 F.2d 1339· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court's conduct in pressuring alibi witnesses to change their testimony constituted a constitutional error that was not harmless.
• Martin v. State
  397 So. 2d 1012· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Two law enforcement officers were convicted of indirect criminal contempt for interviewing a notary public regarding the validity of an affidavit used in criminal charges against one officer's wife. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions on the merits, find
• United States v. DuBOIS
  645 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to prove by competent evidence that the defendant was intoxicated while driving, an essential element of involuntary manslaughter.
• United States v. Evans
  614 F.2d 1195· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the stolen property had a value of $5,000 or more.
• Mims v. State
  367 So. 2d 706· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-02-20 ·cited 2×
  Michael Mims appeals his conviction for burglary and trespass, challenging the admission of his co-defendant Hutto's confession that incriminated him despite an attempt to expurgate Mims' name. The Florida First DCA reversed, holding that the inadequately sanitized confession vio
• Farabee v. State
  336 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-09-22 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Clark
  525 F.2d 314· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant knowingly transported a stolen diamond in interstate commerce, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury.
• Hill v. Lockhart
  516 F.2d 910· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence as an affirmative defense does not violate due process, provided the prosecution proves all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Phillips v. Hocker
  473 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Nevada's rule placing the burden of proving insanity on the defendant does not violate the Due Process Clause, and a potentially erroneous jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for mitigation was harmless error given the other instructions.
• United States v. Celerino Camacho-Davalos
  468 F.2d 1382· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individuals transported were aliens and that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy.
• Stubbs v. Louie L. Wainwright
  468 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 2×
• Cannito v. Sigler
  449 F.2d 542· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that even if evidence was illegally seized and improperly admitted for impeachment, its introduction was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Wertz
  447 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prosecutor's argument regarding cross-examination was ambiguous and the jury instruction on the burden of proof was erroneous, warranting reversal.
• United States v. Glantzman
  447 F.2d 199· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Glantzman's conviction for aiding and abetting.
• Robideau v. Rhay
  431 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the habeas corpus petition without a full record to determine if constitutional error was harmless.
• United States v. Thomas
  414 F.2d 792· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of error regarding the jury charge were without merit and affirmed the conviction.
• State v. Nesbitt Rolle
  202 So. 2d 867· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-10-11 ·cited 2×
  Florida appealed the trial court's grant of a new trial in a second-degree murder case, contending the verdict was valid. The appellate court held that when a trial judge finds a jury verdict contrary to law and the weight of evidence in a criminal case, the judge must grant a di
• United States v. Kessler
  352 F.2d 499· 6th Cir.· 1965-11-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury was entitled to consider the testimony of a witness with a criminal history, especially when corroborated, and that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Hickey v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs
  10 Fla. Supp. 12· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1955-12-05 ·cited 2×
  A dentist challenged the Board of Dental Examiners' three-year license suspension for unlicensed practice violations, arguing the board applied the wrong standard of proof. The court held that license revocation cases require clear, positive, and unequivocal proof beyond reasonab
• Hubbard v. State
  73 So. 2d 850· Fla.· 1954-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed with the Attorney General's confession of error.
• Huelster v. Reiter
  168 F.2d 542· C.C.P.A.· 1948-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an applicant filing after a patent has issued bears the burden of proving invention beyond a reasonable doubt, including conception, reduction to practice, and diligence, and that making a functional item without testing does not constitute reduction to practi
• Sistrunk v. United States
  162 F.2d 188· 5th Cir.· 1947-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding cross-examination, impeachment, and jury instructions, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Silva
  131 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1942-11-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction.