Character Evidence

704 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 170 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Whitted v. State
  362 So. 2d 668· Fla.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 61×·via Admissibility Of Character Evidence
  Michael Whitted was convicted of prostitution under Florida law for engaging in sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that evidence of the victim's prior sexual activities with another person was irrelevant and high
• United States v. Payne
  805 F.2d 1062· D.C. Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the admission of firearms into evidence was proper to show intent to distribute a controlled substance, and the denial of a lesser included offense instruction was also correct.
• United States v. Williams
  738 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 60×·via Cross-Examination Of Character Witnesses
  The court held that while certain cross-examination of character witnesses was improper, it constituted harmless error, and pre-indictment delay did not violate due process as the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice.
• United States v. Fierson
  419 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 60×·via Rule Against Character Evidence
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior similar offense was proper to prove intent, and the district judge did not abuse discretion.
• United States v. Gosser
  339 F.2d 102· 6th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 60×·via Cross-Examination Of Character Witnesses
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in ruling entrapment was not an issue as a matter of law and that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.
• United States v. Borders
  693 F.2d 1318· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the admission of flight evidence and the jury instructions regarding flight and character evidence were not erroneous.
• United States v. Fosher
  568 F.2d 207· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-04 ·cited 59×
  The admission of a mug shot, even with masked identifying features, was an abuse of discretion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential prejudice of implying a prior criminal record.
• United States v. Battaglia
  394 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1968-01-09 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Battaglia and Evans of conspiracy to extort, and that numerous trial errors prejudiced the defendants, warranting a new trial.
• Andrews v. State
  172 So. 2d 505· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-03-02 ·cited 58×
  Andrews was convicted of a crime against nature but appealed on three grounds: jury prejudice from judicial questioning, admission of evidence of a similar subsequent offense, and improper cross-examination regarding a dishonorable military discharge. The appellate court affirmed
• United States v. Cooper
  577 F.2d 1079· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent to defraud could have been more precise, it was not so prejudicial as to require reversal, and the admission of evidence of prior bad acts without a limiting instruction was not plain error.
• United States v. Alker
  260 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-10 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of willful tax evasion, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its cross-examination of a character witness.
• United States v. Beno
  324 F.2d 582· 2d Cir.· 1963-11-12 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the extensive introduction of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence concerning collateral acts of the defendant, even if invited by the defense to some extent, constituted reversible error because it denied the defendant a fair trial on the specific charges.
• United States v. Wright
  542 F.2d 975· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination and admitting certain rebuttal testimony, and that procedural rules regarding jury instructions were not met for review.
• Malatkofski v. United States
  179 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1950-01-25 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the denial of severance motions was proper, and the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• United States v. Crawford
  438 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 52×·via Improper Character Evidence
  The court held that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his association with individuals convicted of drug offenses, as this was unduly prejudicial and exceeded the scope of direct examination. The court also found that admitti
• United States v. Phillips
  375 F.2d 75· 7th Cir.· 1967-03-07 ·cited 52×·via Rule Against Character Evidence
  The admission of testimony detailing a separate transaction between the defendant and Tommie Phillips, over repeated objection, prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial.
• Segal v. United States
  246 F.2d 814· 8th Cir.· 1957-08-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for subornation of perjury, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Buck Clinton and Edward Clinton v. State
  56 Fla. 57· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for arson, finding that the trial court improperly admitted testimony about a threat made by one defendant against an attorney, which was not directly related to the victim of the arson. The court also found error in allowing the pr
• Shelton v. State
  654 So. 2d 1295· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-05-31 ·cited 51×
  The court held that admitting officer testimony about not recovering marked money or drugs from other drug sellers, and a prosecutor's closing argument comment implying the defendant failed to present evidence of innocence, were inadmissible and prejudicial errors.
• United States v. Page
  808 F.2d 723· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-02 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's various claims of prosecutorial misconduct, errors in wiretap affidavits, Brady and Jencks Act violations, improper cross-examination, and newly discovered evidence did not warrant dismissal or a new trial.
• United States v. McGUIRE
  744 F.2d 1197· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to give a specific good faith jury instruction and in instructing the jury that bank loan file documents constituted 'bank statements' under 18 U.S.C. § 1005, these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The cour
• United States v. Loran Anthony Biswell
  700 F.2d 1310· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 50×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior crimes or bad acts under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) for purposes of showing motive, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.
• Bratcher v. United States
  149 F.2d 742· 4th Cir.· 1945-05-09 ·cited 50×·via Cross-Examination Of Character Witnesses
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for evading military service by presenting himself in an abnormal physical condition due to drug use was valid, and no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Daily
  921 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the refusal of a requested jury instruction on character evidence, despite the defendants' acquittal on most charges and conviction on conspiracy, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights to a fair trial.
• Gorham v. State
  454 So. 2d 556· Fla.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 48×
  David Gorham was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery in the shooting death of Carl Peterson during a robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated two of the four aggravating circumstances relied upon for the death sentence, yet upheld
• United States v. Ambrose
  483 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-28 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the admission of unreliable hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's reputation required reversal of the conviction. It also found the jury instructions on entrapment to be erroneous.
• United States v. Trollinger
  415 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the exclusion of character evidence was proper, the jury charge was adequate, and the admission of statements complied with Miranda.
• State v. Page
  449 So. 2d 813· Fla.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 47×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that petit theft convictions are per se crimes of dishonesty admissible for impeachment under Florida's evidence code, rejecting the First District's narrow interpretation requiring proof of affirmative misstatement or misrepresentation. The Court r
• United States v. Gorel
  622 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the district court's rulings on venue, discovery, bill of particulars, suppression of statements, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or denial of acquittal/new trial motions.
• Berra v. United States
  221 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1955-04-22 ·cited 47×
  The court held that embezzled funds are not taxable income, but funds obtained by fraud from a third party are. It also held that a person is not a 'witness' under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 if they have no intent or expectation to testify.
• Peadon v. The State of Frorida
  46 Fla. 124· Fla.· 1903-06-01 ·cited 47×
  Tom Peadon and Sam Foster were convicted of manslaughter in a joint trial for the murder of W. J. Mercer, while their co-defendants William and Milton Foster were acquitted. The Florida Supreme Court reviewed multiple assignments of error challenging jury selection, witness exami
• Holton v. State
  28 Fla. 303· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 47×
  Frank Holton was convicted under an 1887 Florida statute of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under seventeen years old. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and two-year sentence, holding that the statute's language sufficiently charged the offense
• Hendricks v. State
  34 So. 3d 819· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-05-26 ·cited 46×
  Ronald Hendricks was convicted of battery and two counts of sexual battery on a child. On appeal, he challenged the exclusion of character evidence regarding his reputation for sexual morality and the trial court's handling of the jury's request to review trial testimony. The app
• United States v. Hyman
  741 F.2d 906· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 46×
• Shimon v. United States
  352 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1965-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court erred in unduly restricting a defense character witness's testimony regarding the outcome of prior charges, which prejudiced the appellant.
• Gluck v. State
  62 So. 2d 71· Fla.· 1952-12-22 ·cited 46×
  The appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape after being charged with rape. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that the trial was fundamentally unfair due to prosecutorial misconduct, including introduction of evidence of prior similar
• United States v. Schanerman
  150 F.2d 941· 3d Cir.· 1945-07-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that the indictment itself is not evidence of guilt.
• State v. Michaels
  454 So. 2d 560· Fla.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 45×
  The court reviewed a petition to determine if it was improper for the prosecutor to comment on the respondent's failure to call his daughter as a witness, finding jurisdiction based on conflict with a prior case.
• United States v. Burke
  781 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a "standing alone" jury instruction, which suggests character evidence alone may create reasonable doubt, is misleading and should not be given. Prior precedent to the contrary is overruled.
• Reyes v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  589 F.2d 791· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 44×·via Admissibility Of Character Evidence
  The court held that prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication were inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(a) and not admissible habit evidence under Rule 406.
• United States v. Oliver
  525 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 44×
• Krogmann v. United States
  225 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1955-08-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in venue rulings and in excluding certain testimony, requiring a new trial for some counts. The court also found error in the handling of prejudicial publicity.
• United States v. Thomas
  676 F.2d 531· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a good character instruction or admitting testimony regarding the street value o
• United States v. Canniff
  521 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that while a youthful offender adjudication is generally inadmissible for impeachment, the prosecutor's attempt to use it did not require reversal due to defense counsel opening the door and the jury never learning of the adjudication. The court also held that the
• United States v. Haimowitz
  706 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or denying surrebuttal, and the conspiracy count was not duplicitous.
• United States v. Davis
  639 F.2d 239· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 42×
  The Sixth Amendment forbids excluding otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules against criminal defendants, and the trial court abused its discretion by excluding crucial character witnesses for the defense.
• United States v. Southers
  583 F.2d 1302· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to defraud and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on intent, cross-examination, and the defendant's right to remain silent.
• United States v. Roland
  449 F.2d 1281· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a potentially prejudicial remark by an agent was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Conforti
  200 F.2d 365· 7th Cir.· 1952-11-10 ·cited 42×·via Cross-Examination Of Character Witnesses
  The court held that while the defendant had a right to demand the identity of an informant who participated in the alleged criminal transactions, the record did not show such a demand was made, and thus no error occurred. The court also held that the cross-examination of characte
• DeFREITAS v. State
  701 So. 2d 593· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-10-22 ·cited 41×
  William DeFreitas was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of three years imprisonment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that while the evidence was sufficient t