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
-
Antonio Melton appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion seeking postconviction relief and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this Florida capital case. Melton was convicted of first-degree felony murder and armed robbery in the death of George Carter during a pawn shop r
-
497 So. 2d 640·
Fla.·
1986-10-30
·cited 33×
The court held that the district court erred in affirming the conviction because the trial court improperly denied a jury instruction on battery, a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, and the harmless error analysis was based on a faulty premise regarding verdict forms
-
479 So. 2d 208·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1985-11-27
·cited 33×
Darrell Whitfield appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery, attempted robbery, and aggravated assault. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the convictions but reverses the sentence, requiring the trial court to prepare a written sentencing guidelines scoreshe
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud conviction, the jury instructions were not plainly erroneous, and the cross-examination regarding the defendant's silence was permissible.
-
733 F.2d 596·
9th Cir.·
1984-02-14
·cited 33×
The court held that disbarment in one state does not automatically render counsel ineffective in another, and the Cooper standard for harmless error is appropriate for evaluating such claims.
-
The court affirmed convictions, finding no reversible error in evidentiary rulings, jury procedures, or jury instructions, and holding that any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
508 F.2d 761·
5th Cir.·
1975-02-21
·cited 33×
The admission of a co-defendant's statement implicating the defendant, in violation of a prior agreement and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, constitutes reversible error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not 'open the door' to such evidence i
-
The concurring opinion agrees with the majority that the error in Roy's case was harmless, but disagrees with the majority's framework for evaluating claims involving counsel's absence during the taking of directly inculpatory evidence. The concurring judge argues that the absenc
-
579 So. 2d 360·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1991-05-15
·cited 32×
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Nestor Ramos's cocaine trafficking and conspiracy convictions, finding prosecutorial misconduct and improper admission of evidence regarding his prior conduct. The court held that the prosecutor's closing arguments and references to an
-
The court held that the unconstitutional jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the defendant's intent to kill, and that Brady claims were procedurally defaulted.
-
876 F.2d 734·
9th Cir.·
1989-05-25
·cited 32×
The court held that the government has the right to appeal the defendant's sentence and that remanding for resentencing under the guidelines does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court held that even if admitting evidence of the defendant's flight was an abuse of discretion, it did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights, and therefore the conviction is affirmed.
-
804 F.2d 453·
8th Cir.·
1986-10-29
·cited 32×
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or the denial of a new trial.
-
The court should affirm the district court's judgment because the prosecutor's improper inquiry did not affect the verdict and was harmless error.
-
The court held that statements by alleged coconspirators were properly admitted under the coconspirator hearsay exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that evidence of other crimes and seized items was also admissible.
-
655 F.2d 707·
6th Cir.·
1981-07-28
·cited 32×
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) does not encompass takings by false pretenses, only common law larceny. It also held that a defendant cannot claim reversible error from the failure to give a cautionary instruction if they declined the trial court's offer to provide one.
-
The court held that minor omissions in advising a defendant of rights before accepting a guilty plea, and imposing consecutive sentences for distinct statutory violations, do not warrant reversal if the errors are harmless.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror, the search warrant affidavit was sufficient, and the insanity issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
-
An accidental pre-trial encounter between an accused and a witness can support a federal habeas corpus claim if the encounter was unnecessarily suggestive and undermined the reliability of the subsequent identification.
-
The court held that the erroneous admission of evidence concerning a prior expunged arrest was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the jury instructions correctly tracked the statutory language.
-
The court held that a conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle cannot be sustained solely on the defendant's confession without independent evidence proving the corpus delicti (that the vehicle was stolen).
-
The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) requires a district court to make specific findings, supported by articulated facts and circumstances, that the probative value of a conviction more than ten years old substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect before admitt
-
551 F.2d 1162·
9th Cir.·
1977-04-11
·cited 32×
The court held that once a petitioner establishes ineffective assistance of counsel, the conviction must be reversed without regard to prejudice, and the harmless error rule does not apply to Sixth Amendment right to counsel violations.
-
318 So. 2d 431·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1975-07-31
·cited 32×
A defendant convicted of heroin possession and sale appealed the trial court's exclusion of testimony about a pending robbery charge against the State's paid informant witness. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the defendant had a constitutional right to cross-examin
-
The court held that a defendant's failure to object to alleged constitutional errors at trial generally waives the right to raise them in a collateral attack, unless the errors are so fundamental as to deny a fair trial.
-
417 F.2d 958·
8th Cir.·
1969-11-10
·cited 32×
The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, finding the error in restricting cross-examination was not prejudicial.
-
Bryan Jennings was convicted of the 1979 murder of six-year-old Rebecca Kunash and sentenced to death. On federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Jennings challenged his death sentence on four grounds: (1) Brady violations based on withheld evidence regarding his intoxicati
-
The panel erred in holding that Idaho's statutory aggravating factor of 'utter disregard for human life' is unconstitutionally vague, failing to give adequate deference to the Idaho Supreme Court's limiting construction.
-
The court held that the state trial court's erroneous limitation on compulsory process did not warrant habeas relief as the absent witnesses' testimony was not material. It also held that the death sentence was not invalid under Collins v. Lockhart, as subsequent Supreme Court pr
-
A defendant's presence is not constitutionally required at an evidentiary hearing to determine if wiretap evidence tainted their conviction, especially when represented by competent counsel who deems their presence unnecessary.
-
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of Hall's motion to vacate his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, and denied his habeas petition. Hall was convicted of murdering Corrections Officer Donna Fitzgerald while imprisoned and claimed
-
935 So. 2d 125·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2006-08-11
·cited 30×
William Fitzsimmons appealed his conviction for armed bank robbery, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his conduct at a different bank three days later and the subsequent police chase. The court held that this collateral crime evidence was neither suffi
-
Brooks appealed a sentencing scoresheet that erroneously classified his primary conviction as armed carjacking instead of carjacking without a firearm, adding 36 points and increasing the minimum sentence from 39.3 to 66.3 months. The Fourth District affirmed the 10-year sentence
-
The court held that the defendants' arrests and searches were based on probable cause, their consent to search was voluntary, and their convictions were not affected by minor discrepancies in the indictment language or potential attorney conflicts of interest.
-
Willie Scurry appeals his 30-year sentence for second-degree murder, which departed from the 12-17 year guideline range. The court affirmed the departure, finding that while some of the trial judge's reasons were impermissible, the valid reasons constituted clear and convincing e
-
754 F.2d 1202·
5th Cir.·
1985-02-26
·cited 30×
The court held that while the errors below were harmless, the extended detention periods without a probable cause determination violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, collateral estoppel may apply to overt acts in a conspiracy case if specific intent was necessarily decided
-
The court held that the introduction of evidence related to drug activities, while sometimes improper, was either harmless error or admissible for context and impeachment, and did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
-
730 F.2d 1218·
9th Cir.·
1984-02-02
·cited 30×
A defendant cannot challenge a federal firearms conviction based on the invalidity of a prior predicate felony conviction, even if that conviction is constitutionally infirm.
-
415 So. 2d 6·
Fla.·
1982-03-18
·cited 30×
Floyd Morgan was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for stabbing fellow inmate Joe Saylor to death in a Florida prison in 1977. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Morgan's arguments that the trial court committed reversi
-
586 F.2d 1117·
6th Cir.·
1978-11-06
·cited 30×
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 does not apply to state magistrates issuing state search warrants for state crimes, even if executed by federal officers.
-
577 F.2d 1356·
9th Cir.·
1978-03-09
·cited 30×
The court held that erroneous limitation of cross-examination is not per se reversible error, but is tested by the harmless error standard. The information sought by cross-examination was adequately presented to the jury through other means.
-
The court held that the appellant's statement made during custodial interrogation should have been suppressed because he did not validly waive his Fifth Amendment rights, as evidenced by his signature placement on the waiver form. The court reversed the conviction and remanded fo
-
565 F.2d 86·
6th Cir.·
1977-10-21
·cited 30×
Statements made in violation of Miranda, even if voluntary under traditional tests, must be suppressed, but their admission may be harmless error if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
-
550 F.2d 1231·
9th Cir.·
1977-03-31
·cited 30×
The court held that the trial court erred in failing to give a complete 'deliberate ignorance' instruction to the jury, which was prejudicial to the defendants' main defense. The court affirmed one conviction and reversed two others.
-
The court held that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that none of his appellate arguments warranted reversal, including claims of insufficient evidence, denial of compulsory process, prosecutorial misconduct, improper undercover operations, and
-
514 F.2d 1314·
D.C. Cir.·
1975-06-23
·cited 30×
The court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal on grounds of hearsay and prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object at trial, and that such issues did not constitute plain error.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defendant regarding his silence at the time of arrest, after being informed of his right to remain silent, was constitutionally impermissible and prejudicial error. However, a co-defendant's conviction was affirmed as hi
-
The court held that the amendment to include the pain and suffering claim related back to the original filing, and that the settlement with a co-defendant did not fully preclude the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the appellant, but remanded for allocation of settlement
-
459 F.2d 884·
6th Cir.·
1972-04-21
·cited 30×
The court held that a search warrant affidavit containing both illegally obtained and legally obtained information must be quashed if the illegally obtained information is essential to establishing probable cause.
-
373 F.2d 65·
8th Cir.·
1967-02-23
·cited 30×
The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly preserve his alleged errors on appeal due to insufficient objections and that the exclusion of expert testimony was not prejudicial.