56 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,495 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the admission of evidence regarding a heroin episode was not reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to the high seas and that consent of foreign governments cannot legitimize unconstitutional searches.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on government over-involvement as a defense for Oscar, and that the prosecutor's comment on Miladys' post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence was improper but harmless error.
-
The court held that the district court's inquiry into the potential conflict of interest arising from joint representation was sufficient to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to separate counsel.
-
The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, though later inadmissible, did not taint the convictions given ample independent evidence, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
-
The court held that opening the footlocker in the JFK building did not violate Machado's Fourth Amendment rights because agents had probable cause.
-
The court held that a stop based on reasonable suspicion was lawful, and the subsequent discovery of contraband in plain view provided probable cause for a search.
-
The court held that the independent evidence against Quiroz-Santi was insufficient to sustain his conviction for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the jury instructions regarding 'guilty knowledge,' including the concept of deliberate ignorance, were proper and did not constitute plain error, and that the charge as a whole correctly conveyed the standard of proof.
-
The court held that a brief, unsolicited mention of a 'gram scale' found in the defendant's apartment, followed by a strong curative jury instruction, did not constitute reversible error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
-
The court held that a witness's violation of a sequestration order, when corrected, does not automatically warrant reversal, and that circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to eliminate all reasonable doubt for a conviction.
-
546 So. 2d 20·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1989-06-13
·cited 37×
The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of drug possession charges against a juvenile, S.M.F. The trial court dismissed the charges for lack of prosecution when the State was unable to produce its witnesses at the third trial setting. The appellate court reversed, holding that
-
The court held that non-mutual collateral estoppel does not apply in criminal cases, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy.
-
The court held that the initial stop and subsequent detention of the defendants were lawful, and the search of the vehicle, including the suitcase, was valid based on consent.
-
The court held that appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in hidden fuel tanks and that the search was reasonable under the border search exception.
-
The court held that the destruction of contraband evidence did not require suppression of testimony absent a showing that independent testing would likely produce favorable evidence, and that evidence of the defendant's pre-arrest silence in response to a private insurance inquir
-
The court held that the admission of prior offenses, particularly those related to prostitution and immigration violations, was unduly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.
-
The court errs in narrowly prescribing factors district courts may consider in sentencing, misinterpreting Congress's language regarding the sentencing guidelines.
-
The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, finding the district court improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines by basing the sentence on drug transactions not proven to be part of the same course of conduct as the convicted offenses.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, limited defense witness testimony, excluded polygraph evidence, and correctly refused to investigate agents' conduct.
-
The dissent argues that the majority erred in finding no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred, asserting that the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike a potentially biased juror for cause, that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and that sentencing calculations were proper.
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for importation and possession of cocaine, and that the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on false trial testimony was proper.
-
The court held that the district court did not commit clear error in including quantities of cocaine not charged in the indictment, but established by a preponderance of the evidence and found to be part of the same course of conduct, in calculating the defendant's base offense l
-
The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or claims of governmental misconduct.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and for possession with intent to distribute, marihuana.
-
The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act permits the use of hearsay evidence in determining sentence calculations under the guidelines, provided it does not constitute misinformation of constitutional magnitude.
-
The court held that while the district court erred in admitting a deceased witness's grand jury testimony without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, the error was harmless because the defendant later corroborated key parts of the testimony. The court also found no plain er
-
The court held that the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded the case for a hearing on the Batson challenge regarding the jury selection process.
-
The court held that the joinder of drug and weapons counts was harmless error, and the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were not an impermissible comment on the defendant's right to remain silent.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the cocaine, as the defendant's consent to the sniff test was voluntary and not the product of an unlawful detention, and that the prosecutor's argument regarding the defendant's assertion of Fourth Amendm
-
The court held that the DEA officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and that her consent to search her bag was voluntary, thus affirming the denial of her motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the evidence obtained from the investigatory stop was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for a government-funded psychiatric expert and for the attendance of witnesses at government expense, as the requests were untimely or the testimony would have been cumulative.
-
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that pre-arrest statements were admissible as the defendant was not in custody, and subsequent statements were admissible as they were voluntary and informed waivers after Miranda warnings. Co-conspirator statements and jury instructions
-
The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was proper, severance was not required due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, and the admission of evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the defendant was not denied due process, but the special parole term was improperly imposed and the case must be remanded for compliance with Rule 32.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance or the motion to suppress, but erred in failing to make findings on disputed facts in the presentence report.
-
The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole and in the context of the entire trial, adequately conveyed the requirement of specific intent for the Travel Act convictions, and thus there was no plain error.
-
The court held that venue was sufficiently established by circumstantial evidence and that the admission of prior drug transaction testimony was proper as it was inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses. Furthermore, comments made during closing arguments did not consti
-
The court held that the stopping, boarding, and seizure of the vessel were lawful, the United States had jurisdiction, the admission of a foreign document was proper, and the failure to give a specific cautionary instruction was harmless error.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the warrantless entry and search were not justified by exigent circumstances, as the officers failed to attempt to obtain a telephone warrant.
-
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence seized from Sena's home, marijuana seized from Romero's pocket, revolvers seized from Romero's van, or in admitting Romero's incriminating statements for impeachment purposes.
-
The court held that the appellants' convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and that their constitutional and statutory challenges lacked merit.
-
The court held that the evidence seized from apartment 7F was admissible because the agents had probable cause to arrest Martinez and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
-
The court held that the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and importation, and the defendants' Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges were without merit.
-
The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on sufficiently corroborated information, and the admission of opinion testimony regarding modus operandi was proper.
-
The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a mistrial after the government dismissed defendants in the jury's presence, nor was the evidence insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the border search was reasonable, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the refusal to give a specific 'two hypotheses' jury instruction was not error.