Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

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

• United States v. McKay
  506 F. Supp. 2d 1206· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-13
  The court held that defendants are jointly and severally liable for forfeiture of proceeds derived from the RICO enterprise, except that one defendant is not liable for the other's salary proceeds due to lack of involvement in the underlying fraud.
• Alonso Valencia v. State
  937 So. 2d 1145· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-08-23
  Alonso Valencia appealed his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of evidence that he displayed three firearms weeks before the crime and a jury instruction. The court affirmed, finding any error in admitting the firearms evidence harmless beyond a reasonable
• Boone v. State
  933 So. 2d 1252· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-07-24
  Harold Ray Boone was convicted of 13 counts of sexual offenses against children and sentenced to life without parole, along with an order for chemical castration (MPA treatment). The appellate court affirmed the convictions and incarceration sentences but reversed the chemical ca
• E.T. v. State of Fla. & Dep't OF Child. & Families
  930 So. 2d 721· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-05-03
  A father appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging the effectiveness of counsel in the termination of his parental rights proceedings. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for ineff
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2005-11-28
  The Court denied the defendant's second motion for postconviction relief, finding that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, unconstitutional death penalty sentencing under Ring v. Arizona, and judicial impropriety due to contact with jurors were procedurally barred or
• Rosanne McATEE v. State
  899 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-04-20
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Rosanne McAtee's conviction for indirect criminal contempt of court, holding that the trial court's procedure violated her due process rights by improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defendant rather than requiring the
• McGEE v. State
  882 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-09-27
  Conviction for attempted armed robbery while masked reversed because trial court erred in excluding defendant's consistent statements under the rule of completeness, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• A. Q. v. State
  884 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-09-27
• J.R. v. State
  831 So. 2d 790· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-12-06
  J.R. appealed his grand theft conviction, challenging whether the State proved the stolen items' value met the $300 threshold required for that offense. The appellate court found the owner's testimony insufficient to establish the monetary value of products removed from the vendi
• Jaumon Ramar Lewis v. State
  823 So. 2d 260· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-08-07
• Coley v. State
  816 So. 2d 817· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-05-17
  The court held that the admission of a 911 tape containing a reference to a nonexistent restraining order was not harmless error.
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2001-11-29
  The court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and found him guilty on all counts. The court determined that while statements made prior to the search were inadmissible due to Miranda violations, the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle was lawful based on p
• Smenner v. State
  789 So. 2d 1205· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-07-18
• Lemon v. State
  767 So. 2d 620· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-09-20
• Hammer v. State
  768 So. 2d 521· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-09-06
• United States v. Morrison
  109 F. Supp. 2d 1366· S.D. Fla.· 2000-08-15
  The court held that uncorroborated hearsay evidence, particularly from an informant with a cooperation agreement, is insufficient to prove that defendants stole vehicles for sentence enhancement purposes, and that legal and investigative costs cannot be included in victim loss ca
• State v. Pelicane
  729 So. 2d 534· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-04-14
  The State appealed a trial court's refusal to adjudicate a DUI defendant as a felony offender. The court affirmed, holding that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had three prior DUI convictions, as required by statute and Florida Supreme Court
• Merejildo Garcia Villegas v. State
  696 So. 2d 818· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-03-12
  The court held that the evidence presented did not prove the firearm was concealed, an essential element of the offense.
• Keene v. State
  689 So. 2d 1176· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-03-07
  Barry Keene was convicted of threatening to place or discharge a destructive device at the Bradenton Herald. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to grant a mistrial after a detective's prejudicial testimony about fire bombing and threats, despite a motion
• Lowe v. State
  668 So. 2d 274· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-15
• United States v. Casas
  999 F.2d 1225· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-22
  The court affirmed the convictions, sentences, and forfeitures, holding that the 1987 arrest evidence was admissible as part of the conspiracy and that the district court properly determined drug quantity and applied the preponderance of the evidence standard for forfeiture.
• Suniga v. R.J. Bunnell
  998 F.2d 664· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that instructing the jury on a non-existent felony-murder theory, which was not relied upon by the prosecution, so infected the trial as to violate due process, requiring reversal of the habeas corpus denial.
• United States v. ALT
  996 F.2d 827· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-18
• United States v. Gerant
  995 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-09
  The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury determination of a breach of a non-prosecution agreement, and the district court's finding of material breach was not clearly erroneous.
• Happ v. State
  618 So. 2d 205· Fla.· 1993-05-20
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Happ's death sentence on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Although the trial court used a jury instruction on the "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating factor that the U.S. Supreme Court had declared unconstitutionally vague in
• United States v. Wilson
  992 F.2d 156· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-23
  The court is compelled by precedent to affirm the sentence, despite concerns about using relevant conduct for sentencing increases.
• Marcel Killebrew v. Endicott
  992 F.2d 660· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-16
  The court held that while the admission of Killebrew's statement violated Miranda, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming other evidence, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit.
• United States v. McDOUGALD
  990 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly laundered drug money or knew the money was drug proceeds.
• Price v. Symsek
  988 F.2d 1187· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-11
  The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred by applying a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for proving derivation and priority in a patent interference proceeding; the correct standard is "clear and convincing evidence."
• United States v. Nichelle K. Davis
  981 F.2d 906· 6th Cir.· 1992-12-16
  The court held that the government failed to prove the defendant's specific intent to join the conspiracy.
• Arnold v. State
  610 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-12-10
• Orrin W. Payne v. Borg
  982 F.2d 335· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-10
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to aid in the killing that occurred.
• Crosby-Mississippi Res., Ltd. v. Prosper Energy Corp.
  974 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-08
  The court held that the district court did not err in rescinding the joint operating agreement based on Prosper's unilateral mistake, as Prosper was not grossly negligent and the parties could be restored to their original positions.
• United States v. Pierre
  974 F.2d 1355· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-18
  The court held that a jury instruction stating it is the jury's duty to find a defendant guilty if the government proves all elements beyond a reasonable doubt is proper.
• Terry v. Petsock
  974 F.2d 372· 3d Cir.· 1992-09-01
  The Court affirmed the denial of a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner's conviction for first-degree murder did not violate *Beck v. Alabama*. The jury was not presented with an unconstitutional "all-or-nothing" choice because they were aware the petitioner was alr
• Neal v. Morris
  972 F.2d 675· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-07
  The court held that sufficient evidence, viewed favorably to the prosecution, supported Neal's conviction, and thus his due process rights were not violated.
• Desire v. Attorney General OF California
  969 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-10
  The court held that the defendant's confession, obtained after he invoked his Miranda rights and without initiating further communication, was unconstitutionally elicited and should have been suppressed.
• Vaden Williams v. State
  596 So. 2d 1202· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-08
  The court affirmed the appellant's convictions and sentences, finding the issues raised by the dissent to be without merit.
• United States v. Ervin Jahue Blevins
  960 F.2d 1252· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-31
  The introduction of testimony that six non-testifying co-defendants pleaded guilty constituted error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Johnson v. Bart Ross
  955 F.2d 178· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-28
  Any error in admitting clothing identification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, making it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue of taint.
• United States v. Barker
  967 F.2d 1275· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-16
  The jury's verdict of guilt on specific counts should be affirmed because sufficient evidence supported the findings.
• Smith v. United States
  502 U.S. 1017· U.S.· 1991-12-16
• Elam v. Crispus C. NIX
  951 F.2d 890· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-11
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a permissive inference of malice aforethought, even with potentially problematic language, did not violate due process because it did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Burks v. State
  589 So. 2d 355· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-11-07
  Calvin Burks was convicted of DUI manslaughter after admitting he was the truck driver involved in a fatal accident with a motorcycle. On appeal, Burks challenged the admission of his statement that he was the driver as violating the corpus delicti rule, which generally prohibits
• Barbosa-Fernandez v. State
  585 So. 2d 1134· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-09-17
  Sonia Barbosa-Fernandez was convicted of indirect criminal contempt for violating a domestic violence injunction by making harassing phone calls. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court's judgment failed to recite the specific facts supporting the conviction
• United States v. Goodman
  945 F.2d 125· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-13
  The court held that the Travel Act's 'subsequent act' requirement can be met by evidence of a continuing scheme of bribery, and that the payola statute does not require proof of actual broadcast. However, a conviction under one Travel Act count was reversed due to insufficient ev
• Gordon v. State
  579 So. 2d 368· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-05-15
  Michael Gordon appeals his upward departure sentence for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial court departed from guidelines based on Gordon's alleged creation of unreasonable risk of harm to others and officers, but the appellate cou
• Rael v. Sullivan
  918 F.2d 874· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-29
  The court held that the jury instructions on extortion did not violate due process because they accurately reflected New Mexico law regarding the essential elements of the crime.
• Isham v. Collins
  905 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-26
  The court held that the state did not introduce sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Hill
  901 F.2d 880· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-24
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.