Directed Verdict Of Acquittal

169 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Curley v. United States
  160 F.2d 229· D.C. Cir.· 1947-01-13 ·cited 353×
  The court held that the jury's verdict of guilt against the appellant was not supported by sufficient evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
• Yost v. State
  243 So. 2d 469· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-01-26 ·cited 180×
  The court held that while the convictions were proper, the sentences imposed were erroneous because multiple counts arose from the same transaction. The sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Taylor
  464 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 176×
  The court held that the standard of evidence necessary for a judge to send a case to the jury is not the same in civil and criminal cases, and that the 'Second Circuit rule' requiring a single standard is overruled.
• Stoppelli v. United States
  183 F.2d 391· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-26 ·cited 98×
  The court held that fingerprint evidence, even if circumstantial, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer possession of heroin, and that any alleged witness misconduct did not substantially affect the trial's fairness.
• Hale v. United States
  410 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-15 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a jury's inference of guilty knowledge from the appellant's unexplained constructive possession of recently stolen property, and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.
• Fitts v. United States
  284 F.2d 108· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-27 ·cited 86×
  A diagnosis of mental illness necessitating commitment to a mental institution shortly after the crime is legally sufficient to raise the issue of mental capacity, and in the absence of government evidence of sanity, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
• United States v. Cruz
  478 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-04 ·cited 85×
  The court held that indictments based on hearsay are valid, destroyed notes do not violate the Jencks Act if not substantially verbatim, and variance or joinder issues do not require reversal absent prejudice, especially in a bench trial.
• Young v. Zant
  677 F.2d 792· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the petitioner's trial counsel's profound ignorance of Georgia's bifurcated death penalty trial procedure and failure to recognize obvious defenses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, violating the Sixth Amendment.
• Emory Jack Brown, Jr. v. State
  454 So. 2d 596· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-06-28 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the State's evidence, even when viewed in its best light, affirmatively proved self-defense as a matter of law, making it legally insufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder.
• United States v. Irby McLAURIN
  557 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-15 ·cited 77×
  The court held that an organized prostitution ring constitutes an 'enterprise' under RICO and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions.
• United States v. Stratton
  649 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the Third Judicial Circuit could constitute a RICO enterprise, but reversed convictions for defendants Harrell and Stratton due to an unconstitutional change of venue. The court also reversed convictions for all defendants due
• United States v. Koonce
  485 F.2d 374· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-03 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the materiality of the defendant's statements to the grand jury, and therefore the conviction must be reversed.
• Williams v. United States
  328 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1964-02-20 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt, and that the jury instructions, while not perfect, did not constitute plain error or prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Lange
  528 F.2d 1280· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the evidence of the defendant's specific intent to make a material misrepresentation was insufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and thus his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted.
• Sonnie Boy Oats, Jr. v. State
  446 So. 2d 90· Fla.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 70×
  Sonnie Boy Oats Jr. appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence in the 1979 shooting death of a convenience store clerk during a robbery in Marion County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated and remanded the death sentence
• Whitlock v. United States
  429 F.2d 942· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-27 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation, limiting cross-examination, refusing a directed verdict, failing to comply with Rule 30 regarding instructions, giving a supplemental instruction, or in the judge's conduc
• Hines v. State
  227 So. 2d 334· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-10-23 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of premeditation for first-degree murder, but sufficient for second-degree murder.
• Schuermann v. United States
  174 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1949-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the defendant's late submission of jury instructions, without providing copies to the prosecution, procedurally barred him from assigning error to the court's refusal to give a specific instruction regarding his failure to testify.
• United States v. Brumley
  560 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the convictions were infected with fatal deficiencies, including insufficient evidence, lack of specificity in the indictment, and failure to prove materiality, requiring acquittal for all defendants.
• Turberville v. United States
  303 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-01 ·cited 46×
• The United States v. Echeles
  222 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1955-04-20 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge believes the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded due to cumulative errors and lack of fair trial.
• United States v. Camiel
  689 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a variance between a single mail fraud scheme charged in the indictment and proof of multiple schemes prejudiced the defendants' substantial rights, and acquittal was the proper remedy.
• Dusky v. United States
  271 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1959-11-06 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial, and that the jury instructions on insanity were proper.
• United States ex rel. Santo Caminito v. Murphy
  222 F.2d 698· 2d Cir.· 1955-05-11 ·cited 40×
  Confessions obtained through prolonged interrogation, incommunicado detention, and deceptive tactics are inadmissible as violating due process.
• Weinshenker v. State
  223 So. 2d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-02-25 ·cited 39×
  Phillip Weinshenker was convicted of entering an apartment without breaking and robbery after a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his identity as the perpetrator, the admission of evidence regarding a second crime, the adequacy of his probati
• Ward Cannon v. State
  102 Fla. 928· Fla.· 1931-09-19 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed defendants' convictions for breaking and entering a dwelling house because the information charged violation of the property owner's possessory rights, but the evidence proved only violation of the tenant's possessory rights. The court held that
• United States v. Jett
  491 F.2d 1078· 1st Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the defendant's claims regarding entrapment, the informant's role, and the indictment's basis were insufficient to warrant acquittal or a new trial.
• United States v. Suarez
  487 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a witness's violation of a sequestration order, when corrected, does not automatically warrant reversal, and that circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt for a conviction.
• Hipolito Marrero v. State
  516 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-15 ·cited 36×
  Hipólito Marrero, a convicted felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm after he took a gun from an armed robber during self-defense but retained it after the immediate threat ended. The court reversed his conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the j
• United States v. AH KEE ENG
  241 F.2d 157· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the conviction must be reversed due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy, improper admission of hearsay and prejudicial evidence, and prejudicial conduct by the trial judge.
• United States v. Fuiman
  546 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 33×
  Inconsistent jury verdicts do not invalidate a conviction if there is sufficient evidence for the conviction, and supplemental jury instructions were not reversibly deficient.
• Silver v. State
  174 So. 2d 91· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-03-16 ·cited 33×
  Sam Silver was convicted by jury of grand larceny for fraudulently obtaining a mortgage deed and promissory note by inducing an illiterate man to sign documents he believed to be a receipt for repair work. On appeal, Silver challenged the constitutionality of the larceny statute
• Roberts v. State
  154 Fla. 36· Fla.· 1944-01-28 ·cited 33×
  Leo Roberts was convicted of statutory rape (unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under 18). Roberts appealed on two grounds: (1) insufficient proof of venue in Duval County, and (2) that the jury's guilty verdict was conditioned on a misunderstanding that their s
• United States v. Silvestri
  790 F.2d 186· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed jury convictions on various narcotics charges, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on severance, Fifth Amendment claims, jury instructions, cross-examination limitations, and admission of coconspirator statements.
• Sosa v. The Honorable Oliver C. Maxwell
  234 So. 2d 690· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-04-17 ·cited 32×
  Relators Sosa and Greene seek a writ of prohibition to prevent retrial for murder in the first degree after the Florida Supreme Court reversed their conviction and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The court holds that reversal on the weig
• McKNIGHT v. State
  341 So. 2d 261· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-01-04 ·cited 30×
  Rosa Mae McKnight was convicted of aggravated assault after shooting and killing her live-in partner Harvey Lee Beekton during a confrontation in which he threatened and rushed toward her. The appellate court reversed her conviction, finding the uncontroverted evidence legally es
• Baber v. United States
  324 F.2d 390· D.C. Cir.· 1963-06-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for assault with intent to rape, but sufficient for housebreaking. The admission of the victim's statement to police, while questionable, was not reversible error.
• Ware v. United States
  259 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1958-10-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the physical presence of narcotics as an exhibit is not essential for conviction if the jury believes the testimony of witnesses who participated in or observed the transactions and chemical analyses.
• United States v. Alper
  156 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1946-06-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the distinction between a preference and a concealment of assets under the Bankruptcy Act.
• Morehead v. State
  556 So. 2d 523· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-02-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for escape could not be sustained on an attempted escape theory because the acts presented did not constitute an overt act beyond mere preparation. The court affirmed the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Chancey
  715 F.2d 543· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was transported involuntarily in interstate commerce, as required for a kidnapping conviction.
• United States v. Koua Thao
  712 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute opium but insufficient for convictions related to using the mail to facilitate the possession and importation of opium.
• United States v. Miceli
  446 F.2d 256· 1st Cir.· 1971-07-14 ·cited 28×
• Ricard v. State
  181 So. 2d 677· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-01-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants were not negligent as a matter of law, and thus, the case should not have been submitted to the jury.
• Wiggins v. State
  101 So. 2d 833· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-03-18 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a criminal defendant must renew a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence to preserve the issue for appeal when the motion was initially made at the close of the state's evidence. The court held that renewal is not requ
• United States v. Ebens
  800 F.2d 1422· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence regarding key government witnesses constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial. The court also found the admission of prior bad acts testimony to be reversible error.
• United States v. Williams
  679 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the indictment's count one is deficient for failing to adequately allege the interstate commerce element of the Hobbs Act offense.
• Baker v. United States
  227 F.2d 376· 5th Cir.· 1955-11-25 ·cited 26×
  Evidence of prior convictions is not admissible simply because the current charge does not require proof of specific intent.
• Clark v. United States
  213 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty for conspiracy to steal whiskey from an interstate shipment, and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• Williams v. United States
  271 F.2d 703· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that comments made by the prosecutor and judge did not constitute reversible error, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and substantive violations of the White Slave Traffic Act.