Duplicity In Indictment

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

• United States v. Payseno
  782 F.2d 832· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court committed plain error by failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction when the evidence presented multiple distinct acts of extortion, creating a genuine possibility of jury confusion.
• United States v. Berardi
  629 F.2d 723· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-19 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the false declarations immaterial and entering a judgment of acquittal, vacating the judgment and reinstating the jury's guilty verdict.
• United States v. Cyril J. Niederberger
  580 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying severance, refusing to compel use immunity for defense witnesses, denying motions to dismiss for duplicity or failure to allege a federal offense, and in admitting testimony despite the destruction of rough notes.
• United States v. Guinn
  454 F.2d 29· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 44×
• Driscoll v. United States
  356 F.2d 324· 1st Cir.· 1966-01-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a lesser-included offense instruction is only required when there is a disputed factual element that would allow a jury to rationally find the elements of the lesser offense. The court also held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination doe
• Tillman Overstreet v. United States
  321 F.2d 459· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-05 ·cited 44×
  The case must be reversed because the court improperly substituted its judgment for the Grand Jury's in selecting the offense charged.
• United States v. Johnson
  123 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1941-09-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was not demurrable due to duplicity or improper grand jury term extensions, as the alleged crimes stemmed from a single, continuing scheme and the grand jury acted within its statutory authority.
• Johnson v. State
  51 Fla. 44· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 43×
  Four defendants convicted of resisting and obstructing a police officer without violence appealed their conviction on multiple grounds, including defects in the indictment, erroneous jury instructions, and alleged variance in the verdict. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the co
• United States v. Gomberg
  715 F.2d 843· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 42×
  A conspiracy count is not duplicitous for having multiple objectives, and a defendant convicted of a continuing criminal enterprise should not receive separate sentences for conspiracy and underlying predicate offenses.
• 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. Murdock Head
  697 F.2d 1200· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the defendant's double jeopardy claims were either frivolous, not properly subject to interlocutory appeal, or without merit on the merits. The court also found that the trial judge's conduct, while frequent, did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair t
• McGahagin v. State
  17 Fla. 665· Fla.· 1880-01-01 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for injuring an ox, finding the indictment fatally flawed for charging two distinct felonies in a single count. This ruling emphasizes the importance of clear and specific indictments in criminal proceedings.
• United States v. Orzechowski
  547 F.2d 978· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-24 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to identify the substance as a controlled substance and that the indictment counts were not duplicitous. The court also found that the denial of certain internal memoranda was harmless error.
• Mares v. United States
  409 F.2d 1083· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-25 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its procedural rulings.
• State v. Trafficante
  136 So. 2d 264· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-12-20 ·cited 40×
  The State appealed the trial court's order quashing a conspiracy count and granting a new trial after a jury acquitted defendants on four bribery counts but convicted them on a fifth count charging conspiracy to commit bribery and lottery violations. The court held that the fifth
• United States v. Margiotta
  646 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an indictment charging mail fraud is not impermissibly duplicitous by alleging numerous mailings in a single count, provided the policy considerations underlying the doctrine are not violated.
• United States v. Ricciardi
  357 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1966-02-04 ·cited 38×
  Proof of effect on interstate commerce is not required on a case-by-case basis for prosecutions under 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) and (b).
• Robinson v. United States
  210 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1954-01-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the indictment was properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a severance, nor in admitting evidence with proper jury instructions.
• United States v. Leggett
  312 F.2d 566· 4th Cir.· 1962-12-19 ·cited 37×
  The court held that an indictment charging two distinct offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 912 in a single count is duplicitous and requires dismissal. Additionally, admitting prior consistent statements to corroborate a witness before impeachment is generally inadmissible hearsay.
• United States v. Arvey Hawy Lyons and Vickie Elaine Lyons
  703 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a mistrial was not required when a witness invoked the Fifth Amendment after partial direct testimony, as the testimony was cumulative and the jury was instructed to disregard it. The court also held that a failure to hold a Rule 44(c) hearing on joint represe
• United States v. Waldman
  579 F.2d 649· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendants' waiver of separate counsel was adequate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuances, and the indictment was neither multiplicious nor duplicitous.
• Stedman v. State
  80 Fla. 547· Fla.· 1920-10-15 ·cited 36×
  Perry Stedman was convicted of nonsupport of his child under a Florida statute criminalizing desertion and withholding means of support from wife and children. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the jury verdict was defective and not responsive to the charg
• United States v. Buck
  548 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge holds that the majority opinion is irreconcilable with prior precedent and that the judgment of conviction should be reversed.
• Channell v. State
  107 So. 2d 284· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-10-01 ·cited 35×
  A judgment of conviction for receiving stolen property is materially defective if it omits the element that the accused knew the goods were stolen; verdicts containing reference to specific counts (e.g., 'as to Count II') are responsive to charges when construed in light of the i
• United States v. Daley
  454 F.2d 505· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the delay between indictment and trial did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish the fund's status.
• Kitchens v. United States
  272 F.2d 757· 10th Cir.· 1959-11-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its instructions on insanity, its admission of evidence, or its handling of the indictment, and that the endorsement of Treasury checks to fictitious persons constitutes forgery.
• Smith v. State
  40 Fla. 203· Fla.· 1898-01-01 ·cited 34×
  Joseph Smith was convicted of operating lotteries and gambling operations in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction and granted a new trial due to procedural errors in jury handling, specifically the court's communication with the jury and per
• United States v. UNI OIL, Inc.
  646 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the indictments are sufficient, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Beauchamp v. United States
  154 F.2d 413· 6th Cir.· 1946-04-01 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous and that the civil court had jurisdiction to try a civilian for aiding a military deserter. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Simons v. United States
  119 F.2d 539· 9th Cir.· 1941-04-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a defendant can waive their right to have the same judge preside over the entire trial, and that a substitute judge who has reviewed the record can validly continue and conclude the trial. Evidence of a stock sale, even if personal, is admissible if it was par
• Williams v. The Honorable Nathan Mayo
  126 Fla. 871· Fla.· 1937-01-19 ·cited 32×
  Two armed robbery convicts challenged their convictions via habeas corpus, arguing the information omitted the word 'rob' and therefore failed to charge a crime. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this technical argument, holding that the information charged all essential element
• Bradley v. State
  20 Fla. 738· Fla.· 1884-01-01 ·cited 32×
  This case addresses whether an indictment charging a defendant with buying, receiving, and aiding in the concealment of stolen goods in a single count is legally sufficient. The court held that such an indictment is valid because the statute defines these actions as part of a sin
• United States v. Vance Dyar
  574 F.2d 1385· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict DeMatto of conspiracy, but sufficient to convict Streeter and Dyar. The court also held that Dyar and Streeter lacked standing to challenge the legality of the search.
• Fields v. United States
  408 F.2d 885· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to order a severance, nor was the indictment duplicitous, and the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Travis v. United States
  247 F.2d 130· 10th Cir.· 1957-07-15 ·cited 31×
• United States v. Duncan
  918 F.2d 647· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court did not err in enhancing a sentence for firearm possession during a drug offense, refusing to suppress evidence from a warrantless search, or denying the return of unmarked cash seized and applied to the sentence.
• United States v. Alsop
  479 F.2d 65· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the refused jury instructions were properly rejected, and the given jury instruction on intimidation was not erroneous.
• United States v. Amick
  439 F.2d 351· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 30×
• Flying Eagle Publ'ns, Inc. v. United States
  273 F.2d 799· 1st Cir.· 1960-01-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the indictment was sufficient, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider all six submitted stories as potentially obscene, when only one novelette and one illustration met the legal standard.
• Miles v. State
  160 Fla. 523· Fla.· 1948-06-01 ·cited 30×
  Willie Miles was convicted of arson for burning a dwelling house in Panama City. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his arguments regarding the indictment's form, the corpus delicti evidence, the sufficiency of evidence, and the trial court's failure to
• Irvin v. State
  52 Fla. 51· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 30×
  E.G. Irvin was convicted of keeping and maintaining a gaming table in violation of Florida law. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction solely because the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence of county jail imprisonment, when the statute authorized only state penitentia
• United States v. Smith
  891 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all three defendants, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the joinder of offenses in the indictment.
• United States v. Masson
  582 F.2d 961· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-26 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, the expert testimony was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for aiding and abetting an illegal gambling business.
• United States v. Broce
  781 F.2d 792· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the second indictment charging a Sherman Act violation for bid rigging on a highway project violated the double jeopardy clause.
• United States v. Aguilar
  756 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a trial judge cannot disregard the government's election to proceed on only one of two offenses improperly joined in a single count of an indictment, as this deprives the defendant of notice. However, the extraterritorial application of 18 U.S.C. § 912 to acts
• United States v. Phillips Lee Saunders
  641 F.2d 659· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Pavloski
  574 F.2d 933· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that forging and cashing checks on a union's account, even if the bank initially pays its own funds, constitutes embezzlement of union funds because the check forms themselves are union property and the union's account is debited. The court also held that a single
• Robison v. United States
  329 F.2d 156· 9th Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 28×
  A guilty plea to an indictment constitutes an admission of all non-jurisdictional facts, and the sentence cannot be collaterally attacked for technical defects.
• Cordova v. United States
  303 F.2d 454· 10th Cir.· 1962-05-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indictment is not duplicitous if it pleads statutory offenses conjunctively in one count, and that the failure to endorse government witnesses or the presumption of guilt in the statute are not grounds for reversal.
• Elbert Croft v. State
  109 Fla. 188· Fla.· 1933-03-21 ·cited 27×
  Elbert Croft was convicted of robbery in Pinellas County Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the ownership of the property and that the evidence connecting Croft to the robbery was unsatisfact