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
-
-
Barbara Holloman was convicted by jury of three counts of delivery of cocaine and three counts of possession of cocaine. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly commented on appellant's failure to testif
-
918 F.2d 44·
6th Cir.·
1990-11-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the jury instructions regarding intent and willful blindness were not plain error and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
-
The court held that arraignment by closed-circuit television violates Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 10 and 43, requiring the defendant's physical presence in the courtroom.
-
912 F.2d 982·
8th Cir.·
1990-08-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior under the rape shield law, and any error in excluding evidence of delusions was harmless.
-
The court held that the Bankruptcy Court's determination that the debt was dischargeable was not clearly erroneous, as the plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on the debtor's financial statement.
-
The majority holds that a defendant waived his constitutional right to a no-adverse-inference instruction by declining the trial court's offer of severance. The dissenting judge argues this holding contravenes Supreme Court precedent and principles of waiver.
-
902 F.2d 1201·
6th Cir.·
1990-05-04
·cited 2×
The court held that the Corps' issuance of a Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26) superseded a previously issued section 404 permit, and that any procedural notice defects were harmless given actual notice provided.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding expert testimony or accident reports, as the excluded evidence was either unnecessary or cumulative.
-
889 F.2d 913·
9th Cir.·
1989-11-17
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in finding sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the victim had personal knowledge of his assailant's identity, and alternatively, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless.
-
886 F.2d 1016·
8th Cir.·
1989-09-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the suspect's confession was not the product of interrogation requiring full Miranda warnings because he initiated the conversation and the statements were volunteered.
-
885 F.2d 323·
6th Cir.·
1989-09-18
·cited 2×
A prosecutor's comment on the overwhelming and unrebutted nature of the evidence, even if it could be construed as highlighting the defense's lack of contrary evidence, is not reversible error if not manifestly intended to reflect on the accused's silence and the evidence of guil
-
548 So. 2d 307·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1989-09-08
·cited 2×
A prosecutor's comment during closing argument that is fairly susceptible of being interpreted as a comment on a defendant's failure to testify constitutes reversible error unless the state proves the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that due process under the Florida Constitution prohibits conducting a compelled police lineup against a criminal defendant in custody pursuant to an ex parte court order without notice to the defendant or opportunity for counsel. The Court reversed
-
The court held that a prior en banc decision regarding an erroneous jury instruction on reasonable doubt controls this case, requiring reversal.
-
876 F.2d 427·
5th Cir.·
1989-06-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the state's use of rebuttal psychiatric testimony, based on the defendant's non-Mirandized statements, violated the Fifth Amendment, but the error was harmless because the defendant failed to establish a necessary element of his insanity defense.
-
873 F.2d 1265·
9th Cir.·
1989-04-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior wrongful acts, as it was not relevant to any material issue in the case and was unduly prejudicial. The court also held that the firearm conviction must be reversed due to the
-
871 F.2d 444·
3d Cir.·
1989-03-31
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court's order denying motions to dismiss indictments based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because such claims are effectively reviewable after a final judgment.
-
868 F.2d 795·
5th Cir.·
1989-03-30
·cited 2×
The court held that the agency's withdrawal of a proposed regulation, followed by promulgation of final rules without a new comment period, does not automatically invalidate the final rules if the original comment period satisfied the APA's purposes.
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions for murder and possession of a knife were supported by sufficient evidence and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court did not constitute reversible error.
-
The court held that a jury instruction placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant in a South Carolina murder trial violated due process because self-defense is an element of murder in South Carolina, which the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
853 F.2d 86·
2d Cir.·
1988-07-29
·cited 2×
Although the district court should have permitted the defendant to testify that he had no prior arrests or convictions, the error was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
-
The court held that the improper admission of nonexpert handwriting testimony was not harmless error and required reversal of the conviction.
-
848 F.2d 158·
11th Cir.·
1988-06-27
·cited 2×
The court held that any error in allowing the impeachment of inmate witnesses with prior convictions was harmless because the jury was already aware of their criminal history.
-
850 F.2d 624·
10th Cir.·
1988-06-27
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court correctly found the Appeals Council's decision lacked substantial evidence because it relied on inadmissible hearsay to establish the finality of a prior denial.
-
The court held that the district court's error in denying access to jurors was harmless, and thus a new trial is not warranted.
-
The court reversed a cocaine trafficking conviction because the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing before ruling on discovery violations, which constitutes per se reversible error.
-
843 F.2d 1582·
10th Cir.·
1988-04-07
·cited 2×
The court affirmed a conviction for third degree murder and manslaughter, finding sufficient evidence for both, but reversed the withheld adjudication on manslaughter based on precedent that a defendant cannot be convicted of multiple homicide offenses for a single death.
-
838 F.2d 189·
6th Cir.·
1988-02-04
·cited 2×
The court held that allowing testimony about the defendant's involvement with drugs was error, but harmless, and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in giving a jury instruction that the defendant's decision not to testify could not be held against him.
-
837 F.2d 670·
5th Cir.·
1988-01-29
·cited 2×
The court held that even if the jury instructions regarding specific intent were erroneous, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
Powell appeals his conviction for aggravated battery and related offenses, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence, impeachment of a witness, and an upward departure from sentencing guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentences, finding the exc
-
The court held that the trial court's exclusion of defense witnesses' testimony, which impeded the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
On rehearing en banc, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed Eugene Hill's felony convictions, holding that a trial court's failure to instruct the jury that the state bears the burden of proving the defendant's sanity is not fundamental error requiring reversal when defense
-
The court held that removing coal from stockpiles constitutes a 'surface coal mining operation' under SMCRA, that no statute of limitations bars the government's claim for reclamation fees, and that allowing a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer was harmless error.
-
505 So. 2d 694·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1987-04-22
·cited 2×
Ernest Michaels appealed his conviction for trafficking in cannabis on three grounds: (1) the trial court's handling of confidential informant disclosure; (2) improper cross-examination questioning about gunrunning; and (3) a third unspecified issue. The Fourth District affirmed,
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for severance and continuance, nor was the sentencing of Bittner excessive.
-
The court held that the trial court's technical violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a) was harmless error and that the defendant's counsel's failure to request a witness list during voir dire waived that issue.
-
Rebecca Zuber, age 16, was convicted of first-degree murder for persuading her friend Jerry Clenny to shoot her father. She appealed on grounds that evidence of her mental defects was wrongfully excluded and that a mistrial should have been granted after her codefendant's confess
-
Comments by a prosecutor that are fairly susceptible of construction as a comment upon a defendant's right to remain silent constitute reversible error only if harmless error analysis shows the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, not per se reversible error.
-
Alvin Thornton appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, claiming the trial court erred by admitting an officer's comment on his right to remain silent. The Florida Supreme Court directed reconsideration under the harmless error standard established in State v. DiGuilio,
-
495 So. 2d 166·
Fla.·
1986-10-02
·cited 2×
-
Danford was indicted for three counts of sexual battery on a child and entered a not guilty plea after standing mute at arraignment. The trial court erroneously allowed the jury to view the indictment with clerk's notations indicating the defendant stood mute, which constituted a
-
Dennis Wayne Thompson was convicted of grand theft and dealing in stolen property after stolen property from a bar burglary was found in his apartment. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction for dealing in stolen property but reversed the conviction for gran
-
Daniel Butler appealed his conviction for burglary with a firearm and attempted first-degree murder, challenging a jury instruction on justifiable use of force in one's own home. The appellate court held the instruction was erroneous but harmless under the circumstances, affirmin
-
The court held that the prosecutor's misconduct in calling a witness who intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and the trial court's error in permitting this, constituted a constitutional violation that was not harmless error.
-
770 F.2d 214·
D.C. Cir.·
1985-08-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the FDA's denial of reclassification for the Drionic device was permissible, as the manufacturer failed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, and the device presented potential unreasonable risks. The FDA's interpretation of the Medical Device Amendments wa
-
The court held that the inadvertent submission of the entire deposition transcripts, including a significant transcription error, to the jury room constituted reversible error because it could have substantially swayed the judgment.
-
The admission of polygraph test results, which are testimonial communications, in a criminal trial cannot be harmless error if the confession was involuntary or if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that while the trial judge's conduct in questioning witnesses overstepped judicial bounds, it did not rise to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal of the convictions, nor did the judge abuse discretion in denying motions to disqualify and for a mistria
-
468 So. 2d 275·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1985-03-13
·cited 2×
Plaintiffs sued for sciatic nerve damage from hip replacement surgery and appealed the trial court's decision to allow defendants to show the jury a videotape of another successful hip replacement operation performed by one of the defendant doctors. The appellate court affirmed t