1,384 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,569 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
620 So. 2d 804·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1993-06-25
·cited 4×
Trial court's denial of defendant's peremptory challenges before jury was sworn constitutes per se reversible error requiring reversal and remand for new trial.
-
The court held that a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically the requirement for a good cause showing for the nondisclosure of confidential informant identities, constituted plain error requiring remand for resentencing.
-
982 F.2d 620·
1st Cir.·
1992-12-15
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, excluding prior bad acts evidence, admitting telephone records, or denying a missing witness instruction, affirming the conviction.
-
610 So. 2d 23·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1992-11-25
·cited 4×
Convictions are affirmed for all three defendants; sentences are affirmed for Michael Dow but reversed and remanded for Richard Dow and Eddie Harvey because the trial court imposed departure sentences without recognizing it was departing from sentencing guidelines.
-
The court held that an intended loss for sentencing enhancement purposes cannot exceed the economically realistic probable or actual loss. It also held that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for an incomplete attempt if they completed all acts they believed necessary for
-
The court held that the district court's failure to properly inform the defendant of the effects of supervised release and its power to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines constituted a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, rendering the guilty plea involun
-
Dola Boykin appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, challenging the admission of hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding information received about a suspect named 'Bill Cosby' in a similar crime. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed
-
964 F.2d 1492·
5th Cir.·
1992-06-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the appellants' convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) were valid and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that the district court properly applied the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
-
964 F.2d 295·
4th Cir.·
1992-04-29
·cited 4×
The court held that admitting evidence of prior similar convictions for assault and contraband possession was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a) and 404(b), and this error was prejudicial to the assault conviction but harmless to the contraband possessi
-
The court held that the defendant's post-arrest statement, elicited by police conduct that was the functional equivalent of interrogation after he invoked his right to counsel, was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
-
950 F.2d 626·
10th Cir.·
1991-11-14
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred by limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential bias, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and that this error was not harmless.
-
948 F.2d 23·
1st Cir.·
1991-10-28
·cited 4×
The court held that while admitting evidence of the defendant grabbing a child as a shield was error, it was harmless error because other properly admitted evidence strongly supported the conviction and the prejudicial effect was minimal.
-
582 So. 2d 797·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1991-07-18
·cited 4×
Florida appellate court affirmed habitual felony offender sentencing despite trial court's erroneous reliance on simultaneous convictions, holding the error harmless because a prior probation order qualified as a predicate conviction.
-
937 F.2d 515·
10th Cir.·
1991-06-26
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
-
Lorenzo Sheffield appeals his conviction for attempted first-degree murder, challenging the trial court's admission of statements he made to his probation officer during a presentence investigation interview for purposes of impeaching his trial testimony. The appellate court affi
-
928 F.2d 740·
6th Cir.·
1991-03-22
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction due to judicial bias and find the defendant's letter did not constitute a "true threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 871.
-
The court held that while the jury instructions on the burden of proof and presumption of correctness were erroneous, the error was harmless in this specific case because the government had introduced sufficient minimal evidence to support its tax assessment.
-
The court denied the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, with dissenting judges arguing the panel's decision wrongly overturned a state conviction by misapplying federal law and interfering with state court rulings.
-
A jury instruction that 'malice is implied from any deliberate or cruel act against another, however sudden' creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's fundamental right to testify was violated when his counsel threatened to withdraw if he insisted on testifying.
-
The court held that a prosecutor's unauthorized participation in proceedings was harmless error and did not require dismissal of the indictment or disqualification, especially when the defect was later cured.
-
The court held that the jury instructions for the Travel Act were erroneous because they did not require proof of intent to violate specific state laws, and the evidence was insufficient to support the Mann Act conviction for 'transportation'.
-
561 So. 2d 647·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1990-05-09
·cited 4×
In this medical malpractice case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial, holding that disclosure during cross-examination that a physician-witness had been voluntarily dismissed as a defendant did not violate Flo
-
900 F.2d 705·
4th Cir.·
1990-04-04
·cited 4×
The dissenting judge would hold that any error in admitting a hearsay statement was harmless, and would reverse the grant of habeas corpus, finding the jury verdict reliable.
-
893 F.2d 894·
7th Cir.·
1990-01-18
·cited 4×
The court held that an indictment returned by a grand jury whose term was not properly extended is a nullity, and the court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant.
-
The court held that the pretrial deposition of the victim was procedurally inadmissible because the state failed to establish an adequate foundation for its use at trial.
-
888 F.2d 101·
11th Cir.·
1989-11-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and any error in excluding hearsay testimony regarding Miranda rights was harmless.
-
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the defendants' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct do not implicate a fundamental right not to be tried.
-
Deliberate false statements in a search warrant affidavit do not require voiding the warrant if sufficient probable cause remains after excising the false material.
-
545 So. 2d 483·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1989-06-22
·cited 4×
Velester Mathis appeals his probation revocation based on three alleged violations: possession of cocaine, failure to submit monthly reports, and failure to submit to drug screening. The court affirms the revocation but remands for correction of the written order to conform to th
-
The joint indictment and trial violated Rule 8(b) and prejudiced the defendants, requiring severance.
-
The court held that the denial of habeas relief on the sufficiency of the evidence claim was affirmed, but the denial of relief on the multiple offender adjudication claim was reversed and remanded.
-
The court held that the bystander juror selection process and prosecutorial comments did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights, and therefore, the denial of the writ of habeas corpus was proper.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent counsel's erroneous advice regarding prior convictions.
-
Kenneth Boutwell appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and firearm possession, contending that his trial counsel had an impermissible conflict of interest by representing both Boutwell and a state witness, that this denied him effective assistance of counsel, and that th
-
-
845 F.2d 683·
7th Cir.·
1988-04-22
·cited 4×
The court held that the admission of prior letters, while potentially prejudicial, was not reversible error because they were relevant to the defendant's state of mind and any error was harmless due to cumulative evidence.
-
The court held that replaying a tape recording for the jury outside the presence of the defendants and their counsel violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal.
-
The court held that precluding an alibi witness solely as a sanction for noncompliance with notice statutes, absent a showing of substantial prejudice, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the district court erred in failing to review the sufficiency of evidenti
-
824 F.2d 1418·
4th Cir.·
1987-08-04
·cited 4×
The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in jury selection, rereading of testimony, merger of offenses, sufficiency of evidence, or admission of co-conspirator statements.
-
The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the jury instruction on intent was exhausted and that the erroneous instruction was not harmless error, thus affirming the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
-
The court held that the absence of a transcript from a preliminary hearing does not change the analysis for determining if the denial of counsel at that stage was harmless error.
-
The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether the admission of appellant's incriminating statements was harmless error.
-
When a trial court communicates with the jury during deliberations and the record does not affirmatively show counsel was absent, reversal is not warranted absent speculation unsupported by the record.
-
A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Brown appeals his first-degree murder conviction and aggravated assault sentence; the State cross-appeals the trial court's rejection of the death penalty. The court affirms the murder conviction despite a trial court error in failing to instruct the jury on underlying felonies (
-
The dissenting judge believes the jury instruction error was not significant enough to warrant reversal of the jury's verdict.
-
The court held that while the judge's written response to the jury was an error, it was harmless and did not require reversal.
-
The court held that while admitting a co-conspirator's guilty plea was error, it was harmless, and the prosecutor's improper reference to excluded evidence in closing argument, without a timely objection, did not constitute plain error.
-
804 F.2d 201·
2d Cir.·
1986-10-28
·cited 4×
The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct and erroneous alibi instructions were not of constitutional magnitude and were harmless error, and his Sixth Amendment claim was barred by Supreme Court precedent.