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 held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance for defense counsel to present testimony on a collateral issue, nor in refusing a requested jury instruction that was more of a jury argument.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard's forced entry into the vessel's cabin for a document and safety inspection was reasonable under 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), even without suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore the suppressed evidence should not have been suppressed.
-
The court held that Prows' appeal must be remanded for the district court to determine excusable neglect for his late filing, and that Ward's double jeopardy and due process claims lack merit.
-
A law enforcement agent's questioning of an individual, even when accompanied by a request to step aside, does not constitute a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment unless a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that a border search of a vessel within one-half mile of the U.S. coast is permissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict one defendant but not the other.
-
A third party's statement inculpating the accused is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if it is against the declarant's penal interest and corroborated by circumstances indicating trustworthiness, provided it does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
-
The court held that joint representation did not create an actual conflict of interest, the prosecutor's remark was not reversible error, and the firearm possession was sufficiently proven as unlawful under state law.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for sanctions and continuance.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the identity of the substance as cocaine and that the nondisclosure of certain statements did not warrant a new trial.
-
The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause, but the introduction of the seized evidence was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the pickup camper and the subsequent search of the mobile home were fruits of an illegal search, lacking probable cause based on an uncorroborated informant's tip.
-
The court granted the government's petition for rehearing, withdrew prior opinions, and affirmed the convictions, finding the vehicle stops and searches were justified.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant was a participant in the conspiracy, and his actions were more indicative of an accessory after the fact.
-
The court held that the search of the defendants' stowed luggage was unconstitutional as it lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances, but Viagran lacked standing to challenge the search of his co-defendants' luggage.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's summation was within permissible bounds, despite defense counsel's prior improper remarks.
-
A warrantless search of a vehicle by roving border patrol agents 45 miles from the Mexican border, without probable cause or consent, violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
The search of the vehicle was permissible under the border search doctrine, as immigration officers had reasonable suspicion to believe it contained aliens or contraband.
-
The court held that evidence of a subsequent, similar transaction is admissible to rebut an entrapment defense and show predisposition, and that the trial court did not err in denying a subpoena for an informer who could not be located.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, given the defendant's active role in moving the contraband.
-
Information gained during a valid consensual search provided probable cause to sustain the validity of a continuation of that search beyond the scope of consent.
-
A district court cannot depart downward from sentencing guidelines based on substantial assistance without a government motion, and a defendant cannot appeal a sentence within the guidelines unless it violates law or misapplies guidelines.
-
The court held that a person blocked in a train roomette by three police officers was not detained within the meaning of Terry because there was no intent to prevent the defendant from leaving.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana and possession with intent to distribute marihuana.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment or in admitting expert testimony and transcripts. However, the evidence was insufficient to prove one appellant's guilt of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the officers' warrantless entry into the Mabry residence was justified by exigent circumstances arising after the arrest of a drug courier, and that a subsequent protective sweep was permissible.
-
The court held that the district court correctly determined that it, not the jury, should decide double jeopardy claims. It also found that the evidence established separate conspiracies, thus rejecting the appellants' double jeopardy defense based on prior prosecutions.
-
The court held that dismissal of an indictment sealed beyond the statute of limitations requires a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant, not presumed prejudice.
-
The court held that the late disclosure of the word "silencio" did not render the trial fundamentally unfair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the "customs waters" definition in the Marijuana on the High Seas Act can extend beyond twelve miles via treaty or arrangement, allowing prosecution of foreign nationals on foreign vessels.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, thus lacking standing to challenge the search and seizure of cocaine found therein.
-
The court held that the trial court's unsolicited jury instruction concerning plea bargains of unindicted co-conspirators did not prejudice the appellant.
-
The court held that the border patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant's vehicle, violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior drug conviction for impeachment purposes and that the hearsay statements were admissible.
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed convictions for cocaine distribution against Hawkins and McCree, finding that the government's lead case agent committed plain error by providing extensive improper expert testimony that speculated about the meaning of intercepted communications, int
-
969 So. 2d 245·
Fla.·
2007-10-25
·cited 30×
The Florida Supreme Court authorized amended standard jury instructions in criminal cases, primarily updating drug abuse and trafficking instructions to reflect 2002 legislative changes that made knowledge of the illicit nature of controlled substances an affirmative defense rath
-
The court should reverse Mr. Hill's conviction because the jury's acquittal on underlying drug offenses renders the conviction for using a firearm during those offenses legally inconsistent and unsupported by sufficient evidence.
-
The court held that the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary and that the jury instructions were adequate, affirming the conviction.
-
The Ninth Circuit held that a 'deliberate ignorance' instruction was inappropriate because the evidence only supported actual knowledge or complete lack of knowledge, not conscious avoidance of the truth. The court reversed the conviction due to the improper instruction.
-
The court affirmed Allen's convictions but vacated his sentence for resentencing, and vacated Pigrum's conviction due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the traffic stop detention was reasonable, the search did not exceed consent, pre-arrest statements were not custodial interrogation, the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, and the sentence did not constitute cruel and
-
The court held that the initial encounter was consensual, reasonable suspicion developed, and Simmons's reaction to the discovery of drugs on his companion provided probable cause for his search, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the encounter between the police and the defendant did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, and therefore the district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines without providing adequate, detailed reasons and without justifying the extent of the departure by linking it to the Guidelines' structure.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in departing from the sentencing guidelines based on the quantity of drugs and the defendant's role in the offense, as these factors were not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission for simple possession.
-
The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest adversely affecting her attorney's performance, and that the jury instruction regarding a 'measurable amount' of cocaine was proper.
-
A passenger has standing to challenge the legality of a traffic stop, but lacks standing to challenge the search of a vehicle absent a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and that various sentencing and procedural challenges lacked merit.
-
The court held that the sentencing judge did not exceed discretion by not departing from the guideline range, as the asserted bases for departure were already accounted for in the guideline calculation.
-
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.