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 circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellants were guilty of marijuana possession with intent to distribute.
-
581 So. 2d 158·
Fla.·
1991-06-13
·cited 26×
Florida Supreme Court held that convictions for both sale and possession of cocaine based on the same quantum of contraband do not violate double jeopardy under Florida Statutes section 775.021, and quashed the district court's vacation of the possession conviction.
-
The court held that evidence of previously prosecuted conduct does not bar a subsequent prosecution if it only tends to prove an element of the second offense, rather than establishing the entirety of an essential element. It also held that overt acts are not required elements fo
-
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the jury instructions did not contain plain error.
-
The court held that the defendant's contradictory statements, coupled with possession of the vehicle, were sufficient to infer guilty knowledge, and that while prosecutorial misconduct occurred, it did not rise to the level of reversible error due to cautionary instructions.
-
The court held that a canine sniff of a garage from a public alley is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the presence of firearms in a drug-trafficking offense can constitute 'use' under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) if they provide security and confidence. The court also affirmed the distr
-
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the admission of wiretap evidence or co-conspirator statements, and upholding the sentencing decisions.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of money laundering transactions, denying motions to substitute counsel, or in sentencing enhancements, but must make a finding on the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, as a rational jury could have found the defendants guilty of simple possession but not possession with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement to the defendant's sentence for possessing firearms during the commission of the drug offense.
-
The court held that the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) do not apply to sentence enhancements under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and the defendant had actual notice of his prior convictions and potential sentence increase.
-
The court held that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause and that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room, making a warrant unnecessary. Furthermore, the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest and based on voluntary consent, and th
-
The court held that the necessity for police interdiction of drug couriers does not outweigh constitutional standards for police intrusion into ordinary citizens' affairs.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in admitting firearms and coconspirator statements, nor was the evidence insufficient for conviction.
-
The court held that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and within legal limitations, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count and by admitting evidence of other crimes that was not sufficiently probative. However, the erroneous admission of evidence was d
-
The court held that while some evidence was improperly admitted and jury instructions were flawed, these errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal of the conspiracy conviction.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants and that the district court did not err in refusing to give a "missing witness" charge against the government.
-
The court held that federal prosecution was not barred by a prior Puerto Rico court's suppression order, and that consecutive sentences for possession of different controlled substances were permissible.
-
The court held that the arrest was based on probable cause, the inventory search was reasonable, and the challenged evidence was admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
-
The court held that the encounter between the defendant and DEA agents at the airport did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the detention of his luggage was supported by reasonable suspicion.
-
The court held that the acquittal on the interstate travel charge did not collaterally estop the government from using testimony related to the possession charge, as not all facts presented were necessarily decided by the jury.
-
The court held that evidence discovered after an initial arrest, even if the arrest was illegal, is admissible if the illegality was not the 'but for' cause of the discovery. It also held that a conspiracy conviction cannot stand if all co-conspirators are acquitted.
-
The court held that proceeding with a trial in absentia was not an abuse of discretion, a jury instruction on flight was harmless error, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that tape recordings and their transcripts, even in a foreign language, are admissible if properly authenticated and that sending transcripts to the jury room is permissible within the trial court's discretion, especially when the jury does not understand the langu
-
The court held that while the district court erred in failing to hold a Jackson v. Denno hearing on the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, this error was harmless in light of the defendant's subsequent confession and the sufficiency of the evidence.
-
The court held that the trial court properly excluded psychiatric evidence for a diminished capacity defense and properly denied the use of a chalkboard, and that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause.
-
The Omnibus Crime Control Act applies to Puerto Rico, and evidence admissible under federal law cannot be excluded because it would be inadmissible under Puerto Rico law.
-
The court held that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incident to a lawful arrest, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, the co-conspirator's statements were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to distribute cocaine and that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
-
The court held that while the failure to give a cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony was an error, it was harmless because the jury was otherwise made aware of the accomplices' interests and received a general credibility instruction.
-
The court affirmed LeCompte's convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute the first marihuana load, but reversed his conviction for the second load due to insufficient evidence. Sudderth's convictions were affirmed.
-
A stipulated trial is not equivalent to a guilty plea requiring Rule 11 inquiries unless the defendant admits guilt and waives all issues. Constructive possession can be established by dominion and control, even in jointly occupied premises where contraband is in plain view.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its voir dire, that sufficient evidence supported the importation convictions, and that the Miranda warnings given to McDonald were adequate.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from the vessel search, nor in excluding certain testimony regarding the destination of the marijuana, but reversed the conviction on Count II due to prosecutorial misstatements of
-
The third Miranda warning was inadequate, and statements made thereafter were involuntary, thus they should have been excluded.
-
The court held that the search warrants were validly issued based on probable cause from a citizen informant, the agents' continued presence on the property was justified by exigent circumstances, and the search of the defendant's truck incident to his lawful arrest was proper.
-
The court held that the investigatory stop, search of the shopping bag, and subsequent arrests were lawful, and that post-arrest statements were not tainted by prior Miranda violations.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's membership in the conspiracy and that he was vicariously liable for the substantive offense committed by his coconspirators. The denial of his motion to suppress was also affirmed.
-
The court held that the evidence seized from the vessel was admissible and sufficient to support the convictions, as the stop and search were lawful and the substance was identified.
-
The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion for acquittal, refusing an absent-witness instruction, admitting evidence of the cocaine's street value, or in the instructions given.
-
The warrantless search of a suitcase in a vehicle at a permanent border checkpoint is permissible if supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
-
The dissenting judge believes the stop of the vehicle was unlawful, and the seized marijuana should have been suppressed as evidence.
-
The use of a trained narcotics detection dog to sniff the air outside a rented storage locker, with the owner's consent, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, and the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficient.
-
The court held that probable cause existed for the warrantless stops and searches based on the totality of the circumstances, including suspicious vehicle movements and informant tips, and that disclosure of the informant's identity was not required.
-
The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by independent surveillance, provided probable cause for Costano's arrest, and that the admission of Costano's statement against Gonzalez violated Bruton v. United States because it was not harmless error.
-
The court held that the search of appellant Garrison's shoulder bag was not authorized by the premises search warrant and that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, thus the evidence seized should have been suppressed.
-
The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding misjoinder, admission of hearsay, pre-arrest delay, and failure to hold an identification hearing were without merit.
-
The court held that the stop of the appellant's vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and therefore the subsequent search and seizure were legal.