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. Ellicott
  336 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1964-09-14 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority applied an erroneous standard of review and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the findings of guilt for mailings in furtherance of fraudulent transactions.
• Smith v. Smith
  108 So. 2d 761· Fla.· 1959-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a constructive trust with the required degree of certainty.
• Sanford Ramsey v. United States
  248 F.2d 740· 6th Cir.· 1957-10-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was substantial enough to support the jury's guilty verdict against the appellant.
• United States v. Ford
  237 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1956-08-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government's net worth method of proving tax evasion was sufficiently supported by evidence, including corroboration of the opening net worth figure and evidence of inconsistent explanations by the defendant.
• Desimone v. United States
  227 F.2d 864· 9th Cir.· 1955-07-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the appellants for conspiracy to violate federal liquor tax laws, and that their procedural and evidentiary objections lacked merit.
• Fogel v. United States
  162 F.2d 54· 5th Cir.· 1947-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecution for failure to register was not barred by the statute of limitations and that sufficient evidence existed to establish the defendant's age for registration.
• Boston v. State
  326 So. 3d 673· Fla.· 2021-10-07 ·cited 15×
  A trial court's error in applying an incorrect burden of proof at a pretrial Stand Your Ground immunity hearing is harmless when the defendant is subsequently convicted at trial by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because the trial burden exceeds the pretrial burden and thus cure
• Tide v. State
  804 So. 2d 412· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-10-03 ·cited 15×
  William Tide appeals his conviction for indirect criminal contempt for violating an injunction against repeat violence. The court reverses because the trial judge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, violating his due process right to have guilt proven beyo
• Owens v. State
  626 So. 2d 240· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-09-01 ·cited 15×
  Willie B. Owens, Jr. appealed his convictions for first-degree burglary, sexual battery with a deadly weapon, robbery with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault. The appellate court affirmed all convictions but remanded for correction of multiple sentencing
• Coley v. State
  616 So. 2d 1017· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-03-16 ·cited 15×
  Sheila Diane Coley's convictions for sexual battery and conspiracy were reversed due to insufficient evidence. The court held that the state failed to prove the victim was physically helpless to resist as defined by statute, and that voluntary cocaine consumption does not vitiate
• United States v. Lewellyn Henry and Winston Franklin McNair
  849 F.2d 1534· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 15×·via Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
  The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the appellants knowingly possessed marijuana with intent to distribute and conspired to do so.
• State v. Cleveland Freeman
  380 So. 2d 1288· Fla.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that trial courts need not give a separate jury instruction on identity and the State's burden of proof regarding identity when the defendant requests one, if the general jury instructions on elements of the crime and burden of proof are clear and c
• Walker v. Butterworth
  599 F.2d 1074· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to personally exercise peremptory challenges, when sanity is the sole issue and the prosecutor uses this as evidence of sanity, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Chandler Jones and S. Macie Jackson v. State
  187 So. 2d 915· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding exclusive possession of stolen property, when considered with other instructions, did not constitute fundamental error, and the ownership of the stolen property was sufficiently proven for the charge.
• Maynard Grady Fowlkes v. State
  100 So. 2d 826· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-10-31 ·cited 15×
  Fowlkes was convicted of manslaughter based on culpable negligence for a fatal rear-end car collision. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction because critical facts about the accident circumstances we
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases-Report NO. 2010-01 & Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Cases-Report NO. 2010-01
  52 So. 3d 595· Fla.· 2010-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized new and amended standard jury instructions for both criminal and civil cases to address juror use of electronic devices and communications technology during trial. The Court adopted instructions prohibiting jurors from using cell phones, compu
• Cole v. State
  36 So. 3d 597· Fla.· 2010-03-11 ·cited 14×
  Tiffany Cole was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery for her role in the 2005 murders of James and Carol Sumner. She was sentenced to death for each murder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her convictions and death sentences, finding substan
• Smith v. State
  771 So. 2d 1189· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the felony petit theft conviction must be reversed because the prior convictions were not properly alleged in the charging document and proven. The burglary and drug paraphernalia convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Ronald Hodges (90-1124/1260)
  935 F.2d 766· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing of Ronald Hodges due to the erroneous refusal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. The court held that drug quantity and firearm possession are sentencing factors, not elements of the offense, and can be determined b
• United States v. Elgersma
  929 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the burden of proving criminal forfeiture is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence standard applies.
• United States v. Hollis Wesley Shaw
  894 F.2d 689· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's statements and identifications were admissible, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• Collins v. State
  535 So. 2d 661· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×
  John Richard Collins appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis, challenging the trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines that imposed 21 years instead of the guideline range of 3.5 to 4.5 years. The appellate court agrees that both st
• United States v. Tisdale
  817 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that any constitutional error in using booking photographs from a prior arrest was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the trial court did not err in refusing jury instructions or limiting impeachment evidence.
• Hall v. State
  477 So. 2d 572· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-03 ·cited 14×
  Kerry Dean Hall was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon for his role in the planned killing and robbery of a businessman. The appellate court reversed his convictions based on a discovery violation requiring a Richardson inquiry, though it found the
• United States v. Brooks
  748 F.2d 1199· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used the United States mails for two specific mailings, thus reversing his conviction on those counts.
• Dyer v. Ponte
  749 F.2d 84· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the joint enterprise jury instruction, despite omitting the element of intent, did not violate due process given the specific context of the trial and the jury charge as a whole. The court also expressed doubts about whether the petitioner adequately exhausted
• United States v. Samuels
  741 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants used telephones to facilitate a heroin conspiracy, but affirmed one defendant's conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Varoz
  740 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for submitting false Medicare claims on several counts due to lack of medical necessity or contradictory expert testimony, but sufficient on other counts where defendant's own testimony created inconsistenci
• Ruel HUX, Jr. v. A.I. Murphy
  733 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof, and therefore, no Sandstrom error occurred.
• Stacy v. Love
  679 F.2d 1209· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus relief.
• Clark v. Jago
  676 F.2d 1099· 6th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 14×
  A jury instruction that allows a defendant's intent to kill to be attributed to an accomplice, rather than requiring proof of the defendant's own intent, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• United States v. MacKlin
  671 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions erroneously allowed conviction based on parental consent rather than the victim's will or incapacity, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove inveiglement.
• United States ex rel. Eddie Allen v. Franzen
  659 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 14×
  The dissent argues that under Jenkins v. Anderson, the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's pre-arrest silence, and even post-Miranda silence, constitute harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Jessee
  605 F.2d 430· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and preindictment delay were without merit.
• United States v. Bycer
  593 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence of a pharmacist's possession of unaccounted controlled substances, without more, is insufficient to support a conviction for illegal distribution.
• Moore v. Duckworth
  581 F.2d 639· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his claims regarding memory erasure and speedy trial, and that his conviction was not devoid of evidentiary support regarding sanity.
• United States v. Costey
  554 F.2d 909· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.
• Zaragoza-Almeida v. United States
  427 F.2d 1148· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the customs declaration requirement in a smuggling case, and the cross-examination of character witnesses was permissible.
• United States v. Williams
  417 F.2d 630· 10th Cir.· 1969-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by refusing to ask two specific questions during voir dire, as they were unclear and the judge's discretion is broad.
• United States v. Carlucci
  288 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co.
  287 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants' motion to suppress evidence was properly denied, and that the district court's findings of fraud in the voluntary disclosure were supported by the evidence, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Leggett
  269 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1959-06-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant caused the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, thus supporting his conviction.
• Horton v. United States
  256 F.2d 138· 6th Cir.· 1958-06-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the distribution of a juror handbook, which contained a statement about sentencing discretion, did not constitute reversible error, nor did the other procedural issues raised by the appellants.
• United States v. Knut Einar Heikkinen
  240 F.2d 94· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for failing to depart and failing to apply for travel documents was valid, as the deportation order was properly entered and the defendant was not denied due process.
• Holborough v. State
  103 So. 3d 221· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-11-28 ·cited 13×
  The trial court erred in allowing hearsay evidence alone to establish the victim's identity in a felony battery prosecution. Because victim identity is an essential element of crimes against persons that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction is reversed and rem
• Ginsberg v. Ryan
  60 So. 3d 475· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-04-14 ·cited 13×
  Barry Ginsberg petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial detention without bond after violating conditions of his monitored release. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that while a defendant forfeits his original bond up
• S.J.C. v. State
  906 So. 2d 1115· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-05-18 ·cited 13×
  A minor is entitled to assert self-defense against a parent's corporal punishment if the parent's actions could reasonably be expected to cause injury.
• McBride v. State
  816 So. 2d 656· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-02-20 ·cited 13×
  Joseph McBride appeals his DUI manslaughter conviction after the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case due to changes in law regarding jury instructions on statutory presumptions of impairment. The District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding that the trial court's
• M.P.W. v. State
  702 So. 2d 591· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-12-03 ·cited 13×
  A trial court must grant a judgment of acquittal when the State fails to present evidence from which a jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and the court commits error by misinterpreting witness testimony to create an admission not actually made.
• Huffman v. Ricketts
  750 F.2d 798· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Arizona Court of Appeals did not apply a procedural bar when it addressed the merits of Huffman's federal constitutional claim, and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not create an unconstitutional presumption that shifted the burden o