664 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 839 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
Wendy Whitney, a defendant in a motor vehicle accident case, appeals the denial of her motion for new trial and/or remittitur after a jury verdict awarding substantial damages to the plaintiff, a rear-seat passenger rendered quadriplegic by the collision. The appellate court affi
-
Edward Singleton appealed his sentencing for sexual battery and lewd acts on children, challenging the trial court's assignment of victim injury points under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the victims did not suffer actua
-
A district court must consider each successive criminal history category when departing upward from the guidelines sentence, even for defendants in high criminal history categories, and must provide adequate reasons for the departure.
-
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the appellant's sentence on two counts and remanded for resentencing. The court found that the district court improperly relied on the "victimization" of accomplices as a basis for an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the
-
William Johnson appealed his five-and-one-half-year sentence for armed robbery, challenging the trial court's failure to require corroborating evidence when he disputed a prior grand larceny conviction used in calculating his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The First District C
-
923 F.2d 595·
8th Cir.·
1991-01-14
·cited 18×
The court held that the admission of a redacted co-defendant confession was a Bruton violation but harmless error, and that denial of severance and dual representation were not abuses of discretion. The denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was also affirmed.
-
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that any error in admitting unanswered interrogatories was harmless. The court also found the appeal to be frivolous and awarded attorney's fees.
-
The court held that a defendant's waiver of the right to be present at jury selection can be knowing and intelligent even if it occurs through counsel and not in open court, and that the advice of counsel need not meet the highest standards.
-
485 So. 2d 1357·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1986-04-01
·cited 18×
Christopher Thornes was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of his girlfriend. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial judge committed reversible error by excluding critical defense evidence: the prior inconsistent statemen
-
784 F.2d 188·
6th Cir.·
1986-02-13
·cited 18×
The court held that the mention of a polygraph examination and errors in the jury charge constituted reversible error.
-
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.
-
The court held that arbitrators must consider the 'harmful error' standard for individual grievant prejudice but can also enforce union rights violated by procedural errors, even if not personally prejudicial to the grievant. However, arbitral awards cannot conflict with external
-
709 F.2d 889·
5th Cir.·
1983-06-29
·cited 18×
The court held that the district court's failure to adequately inform the defendant of the elements of the charges, specifically the knowledge requirement, constituted an "entire failure" to address a core concern of Rule 11, requiring automatic reversal.
-
The court held that a defendant appearing in clearly identifiable prison garb during voir dire, without a contemporaneous objection, is not harmless error if the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming, as it violates the presumption of innocence.
-
695 F.2d 1122·
9th Cir.·
1982-11-12
·cited 18×
The court held that inadvertent intrusions into grand jury proceedings, evidentiary errors, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment or reversal of the conviction, as they were either nonprejudicial, harmless, or cured by instructions.
-
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to preindictment notice that refusal to testify after a grant of immunity could lead to criminal contempt charges, and that failure to produce surveillance photos post-trial does not warrant a new trial if they are not material to t
-
Causey Harrell was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his former wife after claiming the shooting was accidental. On appeal, Harrell challenged the trial court's failure to remove six guns from the courtroom before the jury entered, arguing their presence prejudiced the ju
-
A federal grand jury's service for purposes of Rule 6(g) commences on the date it is impaneled and sworn, not when it is authorized to begin serving. However, a conviction will be affirmed if the charges are not infamous crimes, allowing prosecution by information even if the ind
-
The dissenting judge believes the trial judge was not at fault for the due process violation, but rather ineffective assistance of counsel was the cause.
-
598 F.2d 1284·
3d Cir.·
1979-05-08
·cited 18×
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of documentary evidence in federal diversity cases, and the trial judge's limitation on admitting documents was not manifestly erroneous.
-
The court held that juror testimony about extraneous influences is admissible to impeach a verdict, and the errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
524 F.2d 992·
5th Cir.·
1975-12-12
·cited 18×
A contemnor of a Boys Markets injunction does not have a constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial, even if the underlying statute is § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
-
The court held that the police entry into the motel room was unconstitutional because it was not justified by exigent circumstances, consent, hot pursuit, or as a search incident to arrest, and therefore the evidence seized was inadmissible.
-
294 So. 2d 387·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1974-05-17
·cited 18×
Knight was convicted of three crimes: grand larceny and breaking and entering a concrete company (Counts 1-2) and breaking and entering a gasoline service station (Count 3). The appellate court affirmed the convictions on Counts 1 and 2 but reversed Count 3 due to insufficient ev
-
488 F.2d 462·
1st Cir.·
1973-11-27
·cited 18×
-
422 F.2d 700·
D.C. Cir.·
1970-01-08
·cited 18×
The court held that the absence of a court reporter during a jury instruction, without a complete and accurate transcript, constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial.
-
The court held that testimony regarding a note found on the appellant was admissible as harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for mail theft.
-
308 F.2d 345·
D.C. Cir.·
1962-09-27
·cited 18×
The admission of a document containing prejudicial information, even if relevant for another purpose, was not harmless error if it may have substantially influenced the jury's verdict.
-
221 F.2d 351·
5th Cir.·
1955-04-15
·cited 18×
The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous and the proof did not show a material variance, affirming the convictions because any potential errors did not substantially prejudice the appellants.
-
702 So. 2d 607·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1997-12-12
·cited 17×
-
633 So. 2d 3·
Fla.·
1994-01-20
·cited 17×
The Florida Supreme Court held that violations of statutory time limits in professional disciplinary proceedings under section 455.225 are subject to the harmless error rule, requiring a licensee seeking dismissal to prove that delays prejudiced the fairness of proceedings rather
-
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act are constitutional and apply to all defendants, and that individual claims regarding jury selection, prosecutorial comments, and jury instructions
-
837 F.2d 1362·
5th Cir.·
1988-02-24
·cited 17×
The court held that the district court did not err in affirming the Secretary's decision to deny social security disability payments, as substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant could perform sedentary work.
-
455 So. 2d 519·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1984-08-17
·cited 17×
Freddie Briggs was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm after a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged his conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct involving attacks on defense counsel's integrity, but the court affirmed under the harmless error rule while strongly
-
The court held that the prosecutor's improper argument, which exploited the influence of her office to bolster a witness's credibility, constituted reversible error, even without a timely objection.
-
Deviations from Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting a guilty plea constitute reversible error if they affect substantial rights, requiring vacation of the sentence.
-
606 F.2d 639·
5th Cir.·
1979-11-16
·cited 17×
The court held that the district court correctly granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the defendant's procedural defaults were excused by cause and prejudice, and not a deliberate bypass of state procedures.
-
The Carmack Amendment preempts common law claims for interstate carriage, and Tennessee courts may exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations with local offices for causes of action arising outside the state.
-
Eugene Williams was convicted of aggravated battery, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court erroneously gave a jury instruction on self-defense that was circular and confusing. The instruction improperly negated Williams's self-def
-
751 So. 2d 682·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2000-01-28
·cited 16×
James was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct, claiming juror Anderson failed to disclose that she had two close relative
-
James Melvin appeals his DUI manslaughter conviction and sentence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction but remands for modification of the probation order to delete a drug testing payment requirement, and also addresses two evidentiary issues on appeal.
-
Paul William Scott, sentenced to death for a 1978 murder, sought recall of a prior appellate mandate and habeas relief based on the intervening decision in Glock v. Singletary, arguing that his sentencing jury received an inadequate narrowing instruction on Florida's "heinous, at
-
The court held that presenting an overt act that occurred after the conspiracy's objective was achieved was not plain error because the jury likely convicted based on other valid overt acts or evidence of the conspiracy. The court also held that evidence of the Aryan Brotherhood'
-
589 So. 2d 336·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1991-10-31
·cited 16×
James Massey appealed his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender, challenging the state's failure to serve written notice of its intent to seek enhancement as required by Florida Statutes § 775.084(3)(b). The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while wri
-
The court concurs in the judgment, finding the standard for harmless constitutional error in collateral review is settled law in the circuit.
-
905 F.2d 557·
1st Cir.·
1990-06-19
·cited 16×
The court held that the search of the appellant's luggage was a valid border search, his statements were voluntary, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
-
The court held that the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to properly object on that specific ground in the trial court.
-
A trial court's limitation of jury and judicial consideration to statutory mitigating factors, while constituting error under Hitchcock v. Dugger, is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the nonstatutory mitigating evidence presented is weak compared to the aggravating factor
-
The court should have excluded testimony of patients not listed in the indictment as it was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove character rather than intent for the charged offenses.