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

• Banks v. United States
  204 F.2d 666· 8th Cir.· 1953-05-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for willful tax evasion and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings regarding the indictment, jury selection, evidence admission, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Hall
  198 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1952-08-28 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the respondent did not clearly violate the conditions of his bail bond as modified by Judge Bondy's order, he was in contempt for willfully disobeying Judge Ryan's order to surrender for sentencing.
• Snipes v. State
  154 Fla. 262· Fla.· 1944-03-10 ·cited 42×
  When evidence at trial is insufficient to prove premeditation and deliberate intent to kill required for first-degree murder, or the elements of second-degree murder, the court must reverse and remand for a new trial rather than directing judgment on a lesser included offense.
• Insko v. State
  969 So. 2d 992· Fla.· 2007-09-20 ·cited 41×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant's age is an element of the crime of lewd or lascivious conduct under Florida Statute §800.04(6), not merely a sentencing factor. However, the court affirmed Insko's conviction because he waived the issue by failing to contemporaneou
• Hamilton v. State
  547 So. 2d 630· Fla.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 41×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and death sentences, ordering a new trial. The court found reversible error in the denial of a challenge for cause against a prospective juror who expressed a preconceived opinion of guilt, and i
• Wright v. State
  473 So. 2d 1277· Fla.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 41×
  Joel Dale Wright was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery, burglary, and grand theft in the 1983 killing of a 75-year-old woman. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, finding that the trial court properly admitted prior burglary eviden
• United States v. Mendoza
  722 F.2d 96· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances, including an informant's tip and corroborating surveillance, established probable cause for the warrantless search of the vehicle, and that post-arrest statements were admissible.
• Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright
  699 F.2d 1031· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 41×
• Wiley v. State
  60 So. 3d 588· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-05-18 ·cited 40×
  Eric Wiley was convicted of second-degree and third-degree murder for a shooting death during a domestic dispute intervention. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the second-degree murder conviction, finding the State failed to prove Wiley acted with a depraved m
• Moore v. State
  800 So. 2d 747· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-12-14 ·cited 40×
  Norman Moore appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial following his conviction for sexual battery on a physically helpless person. The court reversed, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by testing sufficiency of the evidence rather than the w
• Campbell v. State
  679 So. 2d 720· Fla.· 1996-06-27 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed James Bernard Campbell's death sentence imposed at resentencing following his conviction for the murder of Billy Bosler, holding that prosecutorial misconduct—specifically improper attacks on the defense psychologist and "message to the communit
• United States v. Averi
  922 F.2d 765· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 40×
  A district court may consider evidence of a defendant's conduct relating to counts on which the defendant was acquitted at trial when sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Martin
  475 F.2d 943· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a jury instruction on the burden of proof for intoxication was erroneous, it did not affect substantial rights and was harmless error when considered with the entire charge and evidence.
• Conner v. Joris
  241 F.2d 944· C.C.P.A.· 1957-02-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the tests conducted by Conner in May 1948 did not constitute an actual reduction to practice because they failed to adequately demonstrate the utility of the claimed process for its intended purpose.
• Fendler v. Goldsmith
  728 F.2d 1181· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 39×
  The majority erred by making contrary factual findings and failing to decide a ripe constitutional question, exceeding its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
• United States v. Mario-Fernandez Kincade
  714 F.2d 1064· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 39×
  The acquittal of a co-defendant on a conspiracy charge does not render inadmissible co-conspirator statements used to convict the remaining defendant on other charges, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• McCLOUD v. State
  803 So. 2d 821· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-12-28 ·cited 38×
  On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court following Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal addresses whether Apprendi's requirement that facts increasing punishment beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury applies to Florida's sentencing guide
• Hildwin v. State
  727 So. 2d 193· Fla.· 1998-09-10 ·cited 38×
  Paul Hildwin appeals his death sentence for the strangulation murder of Vronzettie Cox. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the death sentence on resentencing, finding sufficient evidence for all aggravating factors and upholding the trial court's weighing of mitigating evidence.
• United States v. DE LA Vega
  913 F.2d 861· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-02 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all appellants but vacated the sentences of Betancourt and De La Vega, remanding for re-sentencing.
• United States v. Rothrock
  806 F.2d 318· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 38×
  The appellate court reversed the judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict, but affirmed the order for a new trial, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Scott v. Plante
  532 F.2d 939· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's claims, including those regarding involuntary medication, confinement without treatment, physical conditions, unconstitutional confinement, and procedural issues in hearings, and that the plaintiff's requ
• Marshall v. United States
  436 F.2d 155· D.C. Cir.· 1970-09-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while the conviction on the lesser offense of entering with intent to rob merges with the completed robbery conviction, other convictions are affirmed, and any error regarding identification lineups was harmless.
• United States v. Johnson
  427 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because the sole eyewitness could not positively identify the defendant, and the impeachment testimony of a witness who recanted his prior statement could not be used as substantive evidence.
• McCLARD v. United States
  386 F.2d 495· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-04 ·cited 38×
  The dissenting judge argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to identify the defendants with the crime charged, failing to prove individual participation beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Rolland v. United States
  200 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1953-01-06 ·cited 38×
• Arthur v. State
  818 So. 2d 589· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-04-26 ·cited 37×
  Arthur was charged with driving after his license was revoked as a habitual traffic offender. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that the State need only prove the Department designated him a habitual offender and revoked his license—not the specific prior offenses underl
• United States v. Mitchell
  725 F.2d 832· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 37×
  In federal trials, once a defendant presents sufficient evidence for a duress defense, the government must disprove at least one element of that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the defendant presents insufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on duress, th
• United States v. Masiello
  235 F.2d 279· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-18 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conspiracy to commit extortion, as a rational jury could infer Stickel's active participation and guilty knowledge.
• Peckham v. United States
  210 F.2d 693· D.C. Cir.· 1953-11-19 ·cited 37×
  The court held that while the trial judge's conduct and comments may have created a disorderly atmosphere, the acquittal on one count and the strength of the evidence on the other count, along with adequate jury instructions, meant the defendant was not necessarily deprived of a
• Rodrick D. Williams v. State
  242 So. 3d 280· Fla.· 2018-02-22 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Alleyne v. United States requires a jury, not a trial court, to make the factual finding under Fla. Stat. § 775.082(1)(b) as to whether a juvenile offender actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim, because such finding
• Warnell Robinson v. State
  793 So. 2d 891· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not increase the maximum statutory penalty, and therefore, Apprendi v. New Jersey does not require proof of a defendant's release to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
• State v. Williams
  444 So. 2d 13· Fla.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that in prosecution for escape under section 944.40, the state need only prove the defendant was in actual custody in a penal institution, and the defendant may raise the unlawfulness of confinement as an affirmative defense rather than requiring th
• United States v. Bienvenue
  632 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, evidence obtained from an unlawful search was admissible under independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, the admission of the wife's statement was harmless error, but the special parole term for a conspir
• United States v. Suarez
  608 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the government failed to present sufficient proof to eliminate reasonable hypotheses of innocence regarding an unlawful agreement to import and possess marijuana.
• United States v. Helina
  549 F.2d 713· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-04 ·cited 36×
  The court should reverse Helina's conviction because the prosecution's questioning regarding the defendant's lack of access to his records constituted an impermissible comment on his pretrial silence, violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Murray v. State
  937 So. 2d 277· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-09-13 ·cited 35×
  Murray was charged with aggravated battery after a fight with his roommate. He claimed self-defense, asserting the roommate initiated the assault with a knife. The appellate court reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that Murray had to p
• United States v. Frans
  697 F.2d 188· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed both convictions, holding that substantial evidence supported the conspiracy convictions and that the government did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant immunity to a defense witness.
• Wyon Dale Childers v. State
  936 So. 2d 585· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-02 ·cited 34×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation for his role in purchasing the Pensacola Soccer Complex while serving as an Escambia County Commissioner. On appeal, the court affirmed the exclusion of evidence challenging his co-conspirator's plea agreement
• Velez v. State
  645 So. 2d 42· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-10-26 ·cited 34×
  Richard Velez appeals his convictions for kidnapping with a weapon, attempted robbery, and first degree murder in the death of Patrick Grogan. The appellate court affirms the convictions despite a missing portion of the voir dire transcript, holding that the missing portions are
• Stevie Cole v. Young
  817 F.2d 412· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-28 ·cited 34×
  A federal court cannot hold that a state court misunderstood state law, as state courts' interpretations define state law for federal purposes. A failure to follow state law does not automatically violate the Constitution.
• DeGEORGE v. Bernier
  768 F.2d 1318· Fed. Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Board of Patent Interferences erred in applying an improper burden of persuasion, misinterpreting the patent count, and incorrectly concluding the disclosure was not enabling and lacked best mode. Priority was awarded to the senior party.
• United States v. Harris
  729 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 34×
  Employees of a state agency receiving federal funds, who embezzle property purchased with those funds, can be prosecuted under federal law for embezzlement and conspiracy, even if the property's value doesn't meet the felony threshold, as conspiracy to defraud the government is a
• Ponsell v. State
  393 So. 2d 635· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-02-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Levis Leon Aldridge v. State
  351 So. 2d 942· Fla.· 1977-06-09 ·cited 34×
  The conviction and death sentence were affirmed. A crime-scene photograph was admissible despite stipulation to the date and place of death; jury instructions on unanimous verdict and second-degree felony murder were proper; and adequate aggravating circumstances (prior imprisonm
• United States v. Morales
  477 F.2d 1309· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the admission of a codefendant's extrajudicial confession that inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with a limiting instruction, and can constitute plain error if not objected to at trial. The court als
• United States v. Yates
  470 F.2d 968· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 34×·via Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the government adequately proved the corpus delicti of the crime.
• United States v. Lynn
  461 F.2d 759· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a jury verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for possession of stolen mail and conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
• Gumataotao v. Gov't OF Guam
  322 F.2d 580· 9th Cir.· 1963-09-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the fact a minor was already a ward of the juvenile court does not preclude an adult from being convicted of contributing to the minor's delinquency.
• Nixon v. State
  857 So. 2d 172· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 33×
  Joe Elton Nixon, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of postconviction relief based on his trial counsel's admission of his guilt without his explicit consent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that silent acquiescence to a counsel's str
• Miller v. State
  782 So. 2d 426· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-02-28 ·cited 33×
  Thomas Miller was convicted of three counts of manslaughter and one count of grand theft in connection with deaths caused when a vehicle struck a downed stop sign. The appellate court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence but reversed the manslaughter convictions due to cumulative