Federal Rule Of Evidence 404(B)

1,318 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 7 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Posner
  865 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent marijuana transactions was admissible to show predisposition for cocaine charges, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. However, the imposition of a supervised release term was improper.
• United States v. Harrod
  856 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar acts is admissible to prove intent and knowledge in specific intent crimes, even if the defendant does not explicitly dispute intent, provided the evidence meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
• United States v. LAU
  828 F.2d 871· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, the admission of prior bad act testimony was proper, and the government's failure to disclose certain tapes did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Hutchins
  818 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions of James and Philip Hutchins but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing under the correct statutory provisions in effect at the time of the offenses.
• United States v. Williams
  816 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered alibi evidence and in admitting extrinsic evidence of similar acts (rapes) to prove intent.
• United States v. Sanchez
  790 F.2d 1561· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction, and that the admission of certain evidence and the informant's fee arrangement did not violate due process.
• United States v. Schwartz
  790 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts was an abuse of discretion, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Darryl "Monk" Reynolds (84-5697)
  762 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the videotaped conversation was admissible and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, affirming the district court's judgment.
• United States v. Belony Saintil and Kersazan Tacius
  753 F.2d 984· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony of atrocities to prove control of the vessel and in considering such evidence at sentencing. The court also declined to decide the prosecutorial vindictiveness issue.
• United States v. Ferrera
  746 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and most of the defendant's challenges to the conviction and restitution order were without merit, except for the $18,000 loan which was not sufficiently proven to be caused by the offense.
• United States v. Fleming
  739 F.2d 945· 4th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 18×
  A non-purposeful vehicular homicide can amount to second-degree murder if the defendant's conduct demonstrates malice aforethought, defined as a reckless and wanton disregard for human life.
• United States v. Rodgers
  732 F.2d 625· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction was affirmed because the trial court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing, in joining the offenses, or in refusing to sever the counts, and the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
• United States v. Marlin Walter Larson, D.O.
  722 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on entrapment and in allowing the jury to use transcripts of taped conversations, as these rulings did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Carruth
  699 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay were unfounded, and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
• United States v. Crenshaw
  698 F.2d 1060· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-11 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Crenshaw and Gordon but reversed Lehman's conviction, remanding for a new trial.
• United States v. Andrini
  685 F.2d 1094· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the construction of a commercial office building using out-of-state materials satisfies the interstate commerce requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and that evidence of the defendant's knowledge of fire-starting techniques was admissible under Federal Rule of E
• United States v. Williams
  684 F.2d 296· 4th Cir.· 1982-07-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by requesting a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of second degree murder, even though that offense was time-barred.
• United States v. Mangiameli
  668 F.2d 1172· 10th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding certain evidence.
• Garcia v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  657 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Biondich
  652 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• COX v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Yukio Uramoto
  638 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding prior threats made by the witness, as this limitation impermissibly denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.
• United States v. Dunbar
  614 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for distributing controlled substances, finding no merit in his challenges to the statute, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the denial of his motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Baykowski
  615 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's statement and evidence of prior acts was proper, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt.
• United States v. Alanis
  611 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction on the substantive count was not fatally infected by the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements, and any errors were harmless.
• United States v. Mac van Cleave
  599 F.2d 954· 10th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning other criminal transactions was proper as it was an inseparable part of the crime charged or admissible under Rule 404(b) for motive, intent, and knowledge. The court also found the jury instructions adequate.
• United States v. John Bernard Indus., Inc.
  589 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-15 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in its rulings on witness disclosure, evidentiary matters, jury instructions, or the sufficiency of the evidence, and that the defendants lacked standing to challenge certain evidence.
• United States v. Childs
  598 F.2d 169· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other criminal activity was not reversible error, either because it was relevant to prove intent or because its admission was harmless error, and that the lack of a limiting instruction was not plain error.
• United States v. Gilliland
  586 F.2d 1384· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a defendant's prior convictions, some over 30 years old, during cross-examination of a defense witness was improper and constituted plain error.
• United States v. Jones
  933 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing enhancements, or constitutional challenges.
• United States v. Martin
  773 F.2d 579· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 17×
  The court held that evidence of other illegal acts was admissible to prove unreported income and that the jury instruction on willful blindness was proper.
• United States v. Brown
  770 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying requests for psychiatric examinations, admitting evidence under Rule 404(b), admitting passports under Rule 803(24), or denying motions for severance. The court also found that the indictment sufficien
• United States v. Al Leichtman
  742 F.2d 598· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of Neil and Paul Lombardo for conspiracy and kidnapping, and that the marijuana evidence was admissible. The court affirmed the convictions of Leichtman, Sal Lombardo, and Neil, and reversed the acquittal
• United States v. Pantone
  609 F.2d 675· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence to rebut general denials of wrongdoing is within the trial court's discretion, and the prior ruling in Forsythe does not control this case.
• United States v. Free
  574 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's homosexuality and intimidation of other prisoners was admissible to prove malice aforethought for second-degree murder, and the indictment was not multiplicitous.
• United States v. Neely
  980 F.2d 1074· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-18 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the defendants' challenges to evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial conduct.
• United States v. Levy
  955 F.2d 1098· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior attempted drug transaction under Rule 404(b), in denying the defendant's motion to suppress statements made during a non-custodial interrogation, and in imposing an enhanced sentence.
• United States v. Kramer
  955 F.2d 479· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed convictions, but the concurring opinion expressed concerns about the circuit's rule on admitting other-crimes evidence when intent is not disputed.
• United States v. Capote-Capote
  946 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that sufficient evidence supported the machine gun conviction. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying severance or in the ruling on impeachment evidence.
• Brecht v. Abrahamson
  944 F.2d 1363· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 16×
  The court concurs in the judgment, finding the standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review is settled law in the circuit.
• United States v. Blake
  941 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment's joinder of offenses was proper, certain extrinsic evidence was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez
  942 F.2d 1412· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of a pay/owe sheet as circumstantial evidence of the apartment's use for drug trafficking, the testimony regarding a driver's license and pager, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible errors. The court also affirmed the
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Raphello Harris, Sr.
  938 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti for first-degree murder and possession of a dangerous weapon, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Campbell
  937 F.2d 404· 8th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior bad acts was proper to show intent, plan, or absence of mistake, and that any errors in admitting other testimony were harmless or not plain error.
• United States v. Juarez-Fierro
  935 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that jeopardy had not attached when the first indictment was dismissed, and that the defendants' speedy trial rights were not violated. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Poole
  929 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of prior drug sale testimony under Rule 404(b) was proper, the jury instructions were not misleading, and the sentencing based on the total drug quantity was appropriate.
• United States v. Nolan
  910 F.2d 1553· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 16×
  The court agrees with the majority's analysis but suggests further scrutiny of the admission of "bad acts" testimony.
• United States v. Solomonson
  908 F.2d 358· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that financial loss to a bank is not an element of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and that evidence of personal expenditures and nonpayment of withholding taxes was admissible.
• United States v. Rivera-Espinoza
  905 F.2d 156· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, and the admission of prior bad acts evidence was not plain error.
• United States v. Elbert Rankin
  902 F.2d 1344· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, that evidence of cocaine possession was admissible, that jury instructions were proper, and that the sentence was constitutional.