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

• United States v. Erwin Pascacio Clotida
  892 F.2d 1098· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a defendant who fails to renew a motion for acquittal after presenting evidence waives the motion, but the conviction can still be reviewed for manifest injustice. The court also held that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without more, is insufficient to
• United States v. McCLELLAND
  868 F.2d 704· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-14 ·cited 22×
  The court did not issue a holding as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion. The author concurs with mail fraud convictions but dissents from the bank fraud conviction.
• United States v. McBRIDE
  786 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding expert psychiatric testimony regarding the defendant's mental state, which was crucial for her defense of lacking culpable knowledge.
• United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio
  702 F.2d 496· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the importation of a large quantity of marijuana, coupled with other circumstances, is sufficient to infer a defendant's knowing participation in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Lane
  693 F.2d 385· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the use of a paid informant on a case-by-case basis did not violate established legal standards, and the trial judge's conduct and statements did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. McCASKILL
  676 F.2d 995· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery was not reversible error, as he knew his co-defendants were armed, and he failed to properly object to the jury instructions at trial.
• Payne v. Smith
  667 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-24 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence, combined with other trial circumstances, deprived the petitioner of a constitutionally fair trial.
• United States v. Wilson
  631 F.2d 118· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the willfulness element of bail-jumping, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3150.
• United States v. Russo
  527 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the wiretap applications and orders were sufficient because the government did not have probable cause to believe Russo was committing the offense or would use the target phones at the time of the initial wiretap authorization. Even if there were errors, they
• United States v. Smith F. Brandom, Jr.
  479 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge held that the trial judge's comments on the evidence were not impermissible or prejudicial, and thus the case should not be reversed and remanded on that ground.
• United States v. Cooper
  465 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt when the expert testimony supporting insanity was not sufficiently impeached and the affirmative evidence of sanity was inadequate.
• United States v. Holmes
  453 F.2d 950· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-10 ·cited 22×·via Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not err in refusing a cautionary instruction or in denying a speedy trial claim.
• Watt v. Page
  452 F.2d 1174· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the appearance of a defendant in jail clothing might be prejudicial, it does not automatically require reversal, and the matter requires an evidentiary hearing to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Butler
  446 F.2d 975· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to traffic heroin and conspiracy to sell heroin without a required order form for most defendants, but reversed convictions for three defendants due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Kurki
  384 F.2d 905· 7th Cir.· 1967-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant wilfully failed to report for induction.
• United States v. Varner
  283 F.2d 900· 7th Cir.· 1960-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment's allegation of holding the victim for "other reasons" was surplusage and that the allegation of holding for "reward" was insufficient without proof, thus reversing the conviction.
• Freeman v. State
  101 So. 2d 887· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-04-11 ·cited 22×
  Frank Freeman was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of Raymond Chance and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The appeal challenges whether the state established the corpus delicti, but the court affirms, finding eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence suff
• ST. Pierre v. Draper M. Harvey
  233 F.2d 337· C.C.P.A.· 1956-05-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Harvey's tests were insufficient to establish reduction to practice, and St. Pierre's evidence demonstrated earlier conception and reduction to practice for the contested patent claims.
• Zachos v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
  177 F.2d 762· 5th Cir.· 1949-11-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that oral testimony alone, unsupported by documentary evidence, is insufficient to prove prior use beyond a reasonable doubt, thus failing to overcome the presumption of a patent's validity.
• United States v. Freeman
  167 F.2d 786· 7th Cir.· 1948-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• Valdes v. State
  320 So. 3d 235· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-04-14 ·cited 21×
  A trial court's error in applying the incorrect burden of proof at a pretrial Stand Your Ground hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant is subsequently convicted at trial by jury verdict, because the state's trial burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonab
• A.D. v. State
  30 So. 3d 676· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-03-24 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the market value of the stolen items to support a conviction for third-degree grand theft.
• Stancle v. State
  854 So. 2d 228· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-08-27 ·cited 21×
  A prosecutor's closing argument asking the jury what evidence existed for how a gun came to be at a particular location, made in response to a defense argument challenging the officer's credibility and implying the gun may have been planted, was a permissible fair comment on the
• Hill v. State
  643 So. 2d 1071· Fla.· 1994-10-13 ·cited 21×
  Clarence Hill seeks reconsideration of his death sentence for murdering a police officer during a 1982 bank robbery in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reexamines its harmless error analysis after a federal court identified that the trial judge erroneously found the murder was
• United States v. Monroe
  866 F.2d 1357· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that statements made by a coconspirator to a non-member can be admissible under the coconspirator exception if they further the conspiracy, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions and forfeiture.
• Leodis Dortch v. O'Leary
  863 F.2d 1337· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that federal habeas review of the Fourth Amendment claim was barred by Stone v. Powell because the state courts provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. The court also held that the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's silence, while improper
• Turner v. State
  388 So. 2d 254· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-08-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence and that the state adequately identified the seized substance as marijuana.
• Meeks v. Havener
  545 F.2d 9· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the prosecutor's questioning of the defendant about his post-arrest silence, while a violation of due process under Doyle v. Ohio, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Igor Grushko
  50 F.4th 1· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-23 ·cited 20×
  Igor and Denis Grushko appealed their convictions for a conspiracy to commit access device fraud involving stolen credit card information used to fraudulently obtain electronics from Target, which resulted in over $110,000 in losses. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed their conviction
• Sylvester v. State
  770 So. 2d 249· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-10-27 ·cited 20×
  Roosevelt Sylvester was convicted of felony driving with license suspended (DWLS) based on a computerized driving record showing five prior DWLS convictions. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a computerized driving record alone is insufficient to prove pri
• Butler v. State
  715 So. 2d 339· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-08-12 ·cited 20×
  Thomas Butler was convicted of aggravated stalking based on alleged harassment of his wife. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that the state failed to present substantial, competent evidence of every element of the offense, particularly
• United States v. Littlefield
  840 F.2d 143· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court, bound by precedent, concurred with the majority decision.
• Thomas v. ARN
  704 F.2d 865· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Ohio's statutory definition of reasonable doubt, when considered as a whole with other jury instructions, adequately conveyed the concept and did not violate due process. The court also held that the trial court was not constitutionally required to instruct th
• United States v. Esau Jackson
  680 F.2d 561· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of the defendant's prior felony conviction was proper for both proving an element of the crime and for impeachment, and that testimony about a second firearm was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
• Mayes v. Sowders
  621 F.2d 850· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the introduction of a codefendant's out-of-court statement violated the petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights for one murder conviction, but the error was harmless for the other murder conviction and two robbery convictions due to overwhelming evidence and
• United States v. Milton
  602 F.2d 231· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the crime of presenting false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 287 does not require proof of intent to defraud, only knowledge that the claim was false.
• United States v. Parisien
  574 F.2d 974· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-02 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Pinkney
  D.D.C.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the reasonable doubt jury instruction, despite potential ambiguity, did not constitute plain error warranting reversal in the absence of an objection at trial.
• State v. In the Interest of V. D. B.
  270 So. 2d 6· Fla.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 20×
  The standard of proof required to adjudge a juvenile delinquent for an act constituting a crime if committed by an adult is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
• United States v. Elroy F. Carter
  436 F.2d 200· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's findings regarding the defendant's mental capacity were supported by substantial evidence and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in sentencing.
• Plascencia-Plascencia v. United States
  423 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the inclusion of an unconstitutional presumption in jury instructions did not require reversal because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this smuggling case.
• Burrup v. United States
  371 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-13 ·cited 20×·via Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  The court held that the trial court's Allen instruction and supplemental instructions on fraud, conspiracy, and circumstantial evidence were not improper.
• United States v. Castro
  228 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the judge's role is not to determine if reasonable persons could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to instruct the jury on that standard.
• Felton v. United States
  170 F.2d 153· D.C. Cir.· 1948-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction was not subject to reversal due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudicial jury instructions, as the issues were either tactical decisions, not objected to, or cured by other instructions.
• Emilia L. Carr v. State
  156 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2015-02-05 ·cited 19×
  Emilia Carr was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for her role in the premeditated killing of Heather Strong. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, treatm
• United States v. Paul Y.B. Hahn
  960 F.2d 903· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 19×
  Conduct extraneous to a conviction can be considered relevant for sentencing only if it meets specific criteria for similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity, and the government bears the burden of proving such relevance.
• United States v. Spawr Optical Research, Inc.
  864 F.2d 1467· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 19×
  The Secretary of Commerce's determination that a commodity is on the Commodity Control List is not conclusive in a criminal trial; the jury must determine if the commodity was in fact on the list.
• Mollie B. Smith v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  522 So. 2d 956· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-03-18 ·cited 19×
  Mollie Smith appealed an HRS administrative disqualification from the food stamp program based on an alleged intentional program violation for failing to report part-time income. The court reversed, holding that HRS failed to present clear and convincing evidence of Smith's inten
• United States v. Tebha
  770 F.2d 1454· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's consideration of an exhibit not admitted into evidence required a new trial, and that the district court erred in refusing to impose a mandatory special parole term.
• Alderman v. Austin
  663 F.2d 558· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-11 ·cited 19×