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 evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, while a constitutional violation, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the search was lawful as a border search and that the prosecutor's comments, while potentially improper, did not prejudice the defendants' substantive rights, thus affirming the convictions.
-
The court held that the appellants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the marijuana field, and thus the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
-
The court held that admitting evidence of a prior marijuana possession conviction was error because it was not similar enough to the cocaine distribution charge to prove predisposition, and the trial court failed to conduct a Rule 403 balancing test. However, the court found that
-
The court held that the appellants' Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because they lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, and the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.
-
The court held that the Sierra Blanca checkpoint remains the functional equivalent of the border, authorizing searches without probable cause.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the Cadillac was a permissible extended border search.
-
The court held that the evidence, viewed favorably to the government, was sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
Alfonzo Lewis challenged his federal convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine, arguing that a state court had previously found the traffic stop and search illegal, that certain jurors should have been dismissed, and
-
824 So. 2d 1046·
Fla. 4th DCA·
2002-09-04
·cited 14×
The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, as the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of personal use.
-
697 So. 2d 979·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1997-08-06
·cited 14×
Evidence of cash found on a defendant at the time of arrest is not relevant to prove the crime of simple possession of drugs.
-
The court held that the investigative stop was based on reasonable suspicion, the search of the vehicle and luggage was permissible under the automobile exception, and while the 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction was erroneously given, it constituted harmless error. The evide
-
The court held that federal prosecution did not violate due process, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally for collateral attack, the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, there was sufficient evidence for the conviction, and the sentence was pr
-
The court held that the referral to secondary inspection was based on reasonable suspicion and that the moisture content of marijuana should be included in its weight for sentencing purposes.
-
The court reversed Harold Bratovich's conviction due to insufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The court affirmed the denial of Barreto's motion to suppress her confession and the increase in her offense level.
-
The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and telephone use, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and variance. It also declined to review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim not raised belo
-
The court held that the government's comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence was permissible because it highlighted an inconsistency with his trial testimony, and the exclusion of one character witness's testimony was harmless error.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in finding probable cause to search the defendant's car and in excluding certain defense evidence, and that the application of the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines was lawful.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy and that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, tape recordings, transcripts, or evidence of prior marijuana conspiracy and imprisonment.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellants' convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that the district court's upward adjustment of Campos's sentence for being an organizer was not clearly err
-
The court held that evidence seized during a customs search of luggage at a border and incident to arrest was admissible, and that the defendant was not entitled to sentencing reductions for being a minor participant or for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car, thus lacking standing to challenge the search, and that sufficient evidence supported his conviction for knowing possession of cocaine.
-
The court held that a defendant's false statement about prior convictions to a probation officer constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and that the admission of a post-arrest statement regarding drug sales, while error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court affirmed the conviction and forfeiture, holding that the trial court did not err in bifurcating the trials, admitting evidence of a prior suspicious package, denying motions for acquittal, or in its jury instructions regarding forfeiture.
-
The court held that the defendant's prior conviction was constitutionally valid and properly classified as a felony for career offender sentencing, but vacated the sentence due to a miscalculation of the statutory maximum penalty.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in giving a deliberate ignorance jury instruction and in declining to grant a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to excuse jurors who had served on a prior narcotics trial, nor did it abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that a defendant's sentence can be enhanced for a codefendant's possession of a firearm if that possession was known or reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
-
The court held that the government's transmittal letter promising a recommendation for downward departure, when read with the plea agreement, created an obligation that could be breached, and that the record was inadequate to determine if such a breach occurred or if sentencing d
-
A jury finding of drug quantity is not required for the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), and such quantity is determined by the judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict against Jenkins, and rejected Stephens' sufficiency-of-the-evidence and severance claims.
-
The court held that the prosecutor's questioning and comments regarding the defendant's post-arrest silence did not violate due process, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on discovery, impeachment, jury instructions, or sentencing.
-
The court held that the encounter between the defendant and the police officers was consensual, and therefore the Fourth Amendment was not implicated, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress.
-
The court held that the admission of redacted codefendant statements, the denial of severance, and the sufficiency of evidence were not grounds for reversal of the conviction.
-
The court should not conclude on admissibility without a full record development and proper analysis of attenuation and inevitable discovery doctrines.
-
Consideration of unadjudicated conduct at sentencing for adjustments or within the guideline range does not constitute punishment for that conduct, and therefore does not bar a subsequent prosecution for that conduct under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
-
The court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, upholding the upward adjustment for obstruction of justice and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the supplemental jury charge was not plain error, and the prosecutor's closing argument comments were permissible.
-
A warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle's trunk, conducted pursuant to standard police procedure and for legitimate governmental interests, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if contraband is discovered.
-
The court held that the stop of Pollack's vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion, the subsequent search of the trunk was lawful as incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause, and the delay in conducting the search was justified by safety concerns and diligent investiga
-
The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the quantity of marijuana involved, supporting the penalty enhancement.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the defendant waived certain procedural objections.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict appellants of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and that the district court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in its rulings on prosecutorial remarks and sentencing.
-
The court held that a sentencing judge cannot rely on evidence from a co-defendant's trial to determine drug quantity for sentencing purposes if the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
-
The court held that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was harmless error, the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence was not plain error, and the statutory minimum sentence was not implicitly repealed by the Sentencing Guidelines.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including corroborated anonymous tips and independent police observations, provided probable cause for the search warrant, but vacated the sentence due to a procedural due process violation at sentencing.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in ordering the jury to continue deliberations after one juror expressed doubts during polling, as the trial court has discretion in such matters and no improper conduct occurred.
-
The court held that the denial of the motion to suppress, the admission of documents as circumstantial evidence, the jury instructions, and the handling of a juror conversation were not erroneous, and the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior drug-related acts to prove intent and in ruling that a ten-year-old conviction could be used for impeachment.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrests and seizures were justified by exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.