Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

2,249 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hayward v. State
  59 So. 3d 303· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-04-20
  Jason Lee Hayward was convicted of felony DUI after the trial court allowed impeachment evidence of a prior 1992 DUI conviction, ruling that Hayward's testimony about distrusting breath-testing machines "opened the door" to such evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding tha
• Royal Bahamian Ass'n, Inc. v. Qbe Ins. Corp.
  745 F. Supp. 2d 1380· S.D. Fla.· 2010-10-25
  Evidence of bad faith, claims handling, and other claims against the insurer is inadmissible in a breach of contract action, as it is irrelevant to determining coverage and damages.
• Blash v. State
  44 So. 3d 1195· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-09-29
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of accelerants or in denying a motion for mistrial.
• Torres
  Del.· 2009-08-24
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's conviction of Angel Torres for drug trafficking and delivery. The court found no merit in Torres's arguments that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by threatening or vouching for a witness, that the evidence was insuffic
• Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. Plasteak, Inc.
  641 F. Supp. 2d 1297· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-03
  Summary judgment is granted for plaintiffs on standing, anticipation, obviousness, and laches, but denied on infringement and inequitable conduct.
• State v. Martin
  982 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-06-11
  The State of Florida sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's order excluding a key state witness, former Detective Christopher Zapata, from testifying against another former detective, Lee Martin, who was charged with official misconduct and falsification of polic
• United States v. Jones
  550 F. Supp. 2d 1377· S.D. Fla.· 2008-04-28
  Evidence of the defendant's 2000 drug conviction is admissible to prove knowledge and intent for the charged conspiracy, but other prior drug and firearm convictions are excluded.
• United States v. Battle
  473 F. Supp. 2d 1185· S.D. Fla.· 2006-06-16
  The court ruled on several legal issues concerning the scope of the RICO enterprise, admissibility of prior testimony, and the use of money laundering as a predicate offense, finding that the evidence sufficiently established the enterprise and that certain testimony was admissib
• Hunter v. State
  905 So. 2d 977· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-06-28
  Edward Hunter appealed his convictions for capital sexual battery, challenging the trial court's admission of hearsay statements from child victims. The court affirmed, holding that the statements were properly admitted under Florida's child hearsay statute and that no abuse of d
• Monds v. State
  904 So. 2d 625· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-06-22
  The court held that testimony regarding prior drug activity was admissible because it was relevant to establish the officers' lawful duty and the context of the arrest, and its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.
• Conley v. State
  888 So. 2d 163· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-12-03
  Timothy Conley appealed his convictions for kidnapping, sexual battery, and unlawful sexual activity with a minor, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding similar prior crimes. The court affirmed, holding that evidence of two prior sexual assaults was proper
• State v. Telly Lenard Andrews
  875 So. 2d 686· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-02
  The State appeals Andrews's downward departure sentence below the mandatory minimum for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer; Andrews cross-appeals his conviction. The court affirms the conviction but reverses the sentence, remanding for re-sentencing with the mandator
• Norfolk S. Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
  279 F. Supp. 2d 1250· M.D. Fla.· 2003-08-07
  The court held that Chevron's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata should be granted because the current claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior settled action and could have been brought then.
• Walton
  Del.· 2003-04-25
  The Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "displayed what appears to be a deadly weapon" for the purposes of a first-degree robbery conviction. The Court also affirmed the trial court's exclusion of a hearsay
• United States v. Ozuna
  129 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-23
  The court held that even if evidence was obtained unconstitutionally, it should not be suppressed because the arresting officer acted lawfully under the law of the jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, and suppression would not deter future misconduct.
• September 4
  Del.· 2000-07-17
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion in limine, ruling that evidence of prior fires urged by the defendant is admissible to prove intent and motive for the charged arson offense, but evidence of subsequent fires is inadmissible. The court applied th
• Cunningham v. State
  718 So. 2d 332· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-09-18
• Javers v. State
  712 So. 2d 443· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-06-10
• Singer v. AT & T Corp.
  959 F. Supp. 2d 427· S.D. Fla.· 1998-03-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for class certification should be granted because the class was adequately defined, numerous, common questions of law and fact predominated, the named plaintiff's claims were typical, and the representation was adequate.
• United States v. Patino
  991 F. Supp. 1449· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-10
  The court denied the defendant's motion for production of polygraph examination reports, finding they were not material impeachment or exculpatory evidence discoverable under Brady or the Jencks Act, and that the government had already provided sufficient impeachment information.
• United States v. Borno
  860 F. Supp. 780· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-25
  The court held that a handgun seized from a vehicle within the curtilage of a residence, and cash seized from another vehicle, should be suppressed because their incriminating nature was not immediately apparent and they were not listed in the search warrant. However, evidence se
• United States v. Padilla
  908 F. Supp. 923· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-27
  The court held that polygraph examination results are admissible to corroborate or impeach a witness's testimony, provided certain conditions under the Federal Rules of Evidence are met, and that a single polygraph result can be sufficient under FRE 608(a).
• Walls v. Armour Pharm. Co.
  832 F. Supp. 1505· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-01
  The court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, finding no merit in its claims of prejudicial error regarding the admission of evidence, jury instructions, or counsel arguments.
• United States v. Murphy
  996 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-13
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting a flight instruction, nor in admitting expert testimony, and that prosecutorial comments during closing arguments did not constitute misconduct or plain error.
• Bender v. Brumley
  994 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-12
  The court held that instructing the jury that a "significant injury" was required to prove a federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was reversible error, as it conflicted with Supreme Court precedent requiring focus on the maliciousness of the force used, not the ex
• Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  998 F.2d 504· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-08
  The court held that the district court properly allowed the jury to decide the parties' intent regarding ambiguous reinsurance contract provisions, and affirmed the jury verdict.
• United States v. Kermit Oris Bear Stops
  997 F.2d 451· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-06
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding a prior sexual assault on the victim by other individuals was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, requiring reversal of the conviction on that count. However, convictions on other count
• United States v. Mitchell
  996 F.2d 419· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony stating that the packaging of drugs indicated intent to distribute, while technically violating Fed.R.Evid. 704(b), did not constitute plain error because it was not clearly forbidden under settled law at the time of trial and
• United States v. HAM
  998 F.2d 1247· 4th Cir.· 1993-07-01
  The court held that the admission of highly prejudicial evidence of child molestation, homosexuality, and abuse of women substantially outweighed its probative value and warranted vacating the convictions of Swami and Sheldon. The court also held that the evidence was insufficien
• United States v. Robichaux
  995 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-01
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper, the indictment was not defective, the joinder of offenses was appropriate, and the sentencing determination was not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Tarricone
  996 F.2d 1414· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-24
  The court held that Barberio's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warrants an evidentiary hearing, while Balagula's claims regarding the admission of evidence and sentence enhancement are without merit.
• United States v. Gutierrez
  995 F.2d 169· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence.
• United States v. Taren-Palma
  997 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10
  The court held that admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's firearm possession during a simple drug transaction was reversible error due to undue prejudice.
• Vukadinovich v. Zentz
  995 F.2d 750· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible errors during the trial and affirmed the judgment in all respects.
• United States v. Carty
  993 F.2d 1005· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-28
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under a warrant, nor in restricting cross-examination, nor in admitting 'other act' evidence at trial.
• Kasib T. Bilal v. A.L. Lockhart
  993 F.2d 643· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-20
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the unwritten commitment name policy, as its probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Gatto
  995 F.2d 449· 3d Cir.· 1993-05-18
  The court held that evidence of a defendant's courtroom conduct, including intimidating looks at a witness and the presence of an associate, is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show consciousness of guilt, and prosecutorial comments on such evidence are permiss
• MAY v. Ark. Forestry Comm'n
  993 F.2d 632· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-14
  The court held that the Tenth Amendment does not bar the FLSA's application to state employees and that the exclusion of a DOL stipulation was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Augustine Chikadili Okayfor (92-1706)
  996 F.2d 116· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-14
  The court affirmed one defendant's conviction but vacated and remanded sentences for both defendants, holding that the district court erred by not making specific factual findings regarding the scope of each defendant's jointly undertaken criminal activity for sentencing purposes
• McCRARY-EL v. Shaw
  992 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-06
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding witness testimony, admitting a videotape, or admitting conduct violation reports, and that any error in refusing a jury instruction regarding missing evidence was harmless.
• Berry v. The Armstrong Rubber Co.
  989 F.2d 822· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-03
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient admissible evidence of hazardous substances on their property to withstand summary judgment under CERCLA and Mississippi state law.
• United States v. Blackburn
  992 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-22
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to define reasonable doubt or in admitting certain testimony and exhibits, but erred in admitting a specific lab report under the business records exception.
• Dixon v. CSX Transp.
  990 F.2d 1440· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding that any alleged trial errors were harmless and did not invalidate the jury's verdict on the state law claims.
• United States v. Ihuoma R. Amaechi
  991 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing on the supervised release term, finding no error in the sentence enhancement, admission of expert testimony, or exclusion of impeachment evidence.
• United States v. Sanchez
  988 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The court held that the photographic identification was not impermissibly suggestive, the district court did not err in denying disclosure of the confidential informant, the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not require defense counsel's presence at an in camera interview,
• United States v. Edward Langford, M.D.
  990 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-05
  A juror's intentional nondisclosure during voir dire does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial; the defendant must still show that a truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause and that the nondisclosure affected impartiality.
• United States v. Thompson
  990 F.2d 301· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that evidence of cash and jewelry was admissible and that the defendant was not entitled to a downward adjustment for his role in the offense.
• United States v. Heriberto Ruiz
  987 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-22
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, photographs, or in limiting cross-examination, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.
• United States v. Tarazon
  989 F.2d 1045· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-17
  The court held that the search of the desk incident to the arrest of Mr. Tarazón was valid, despite the judge's disapproval of the precedent relied upon.
• United States v. Townsend
  987 F.2d 927· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-08
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the required mens rea for intentionally intercepting communications, and the exclusion of evidence regarding prior sheriff's misconduct was not an abuse of discretion.