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 erred by failing to make a preliminary finding on the voluntariness of the defendant's incriminating statement before submitting it to the jury.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the second indictment without prejudice due to a miscalculation of the Speedy Trial Act period, and that restrictions on cross-examination and defense witness testimony were not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the Coast Guard had authority to stop and search the vessel because it was stateless and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
-
The court held that the DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and probable cause to seize the appellant's suitcase, and that the admission of cash evidence was proper.
-
The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied to each element of the charged offenses, despite potentially confusing language.
-
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to connect the defendant to the cocaine, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
-
The court held that the search of the automobile was unconstitutional because it was not justified by a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, specifically the automobile exception, as there was no exigency.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The court held that the statutes under which appellants were convicted were constitutional and that there was sufficient evidence to support their convictions. Claims regarding evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were also found to be without merit.
-
The court held that the district judge's supplemental jury instructions indicated a predilection for a guilty verdict, denying the defendant a fair and impartial trial.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marihuana.
-
The court held that the government failed to prove dominion or control over the contraband, thus reversing the conviction.
-
The court held that the conspiracy conviction must be reversed due to a vague indictment and insufficient jury instructions that failed to connect the law to the specific facts of the case. The court also remanded for resentencing on the possession and distribution counts due to
-
Conviction for marijuana possession reversed because officers entered Bibby's home without warrant or consent to arrest him, and the State stipulated that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements were admissible because they were not made in the context of a plea bargain and that evidence of marijuana possession was admissible as part of the same transaction or under Rule 404(b).
-
The court held that the admission of "guilt by association" testimony, concerning the prior convictions of the defendant's acquaintances, was highly prejudicial and reversible error, especially without a proper curative instruction.
-
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to poll the jury regarding prejudicial publicity and in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of 'agent' in the context of an entrapment defense.
-
The court held that the district court's refusal to permit cross-examination of a government witness regarding his bias violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him, requiring reversal of both convictions.
-
The court held that the warrantless stops and seizures of the vessels were justified by exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine, and that the special parole term was improperly imposed.
-
The court held that the Government sufficiently proved the seized substance was L-cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt and that Arias's conviction for telephone use was not impermissibly inconsistent with his acquittal on other charges.
-
The court held that defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence searched, thus possessing standing to challenge the search's constitutionality.
-
The denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is appealable, but the denial of a motion to strike overt acts is not. An acquittal on a possession charge does not collaterally estop a conspiracy charge if the jury could have found guilt on the
-
The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for importing cocaine and possessing it with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the search warrant was sufficiently specific and the seizure of additional furniture was justified under the plain view doctrine.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying a sentencing hearing when the government limited its reliance to the facts of the present charge and the judge was not affected by disputed characterizations. However, the court vacated the special parole term as it wa
-
The court held that the destruction of evidence, the legality of the search, the refusal of a jury instruction, and insufficiency of evidence did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
-
The court held that a defendant is not entitled to force the government to elect between charges of possession with intent to distribute and actual distribution when both arise from a single transaction and concurrent sentences are imposed.
-
The court held that the defendant's statements were admissible because they were not made during custodial interrogation and co-conspirator statements were properly admitted.
-
The court held that an affidavit based on an anonymous tip, lacking details on the informant's basis and credibility, and insufficiently corroborated by independent police investigation, cannot establish probable cause for a search warrant.
-
The court held that illegally seized evidence cannot be used for impeachment if the defendant's testimony on direct examination did not open the door to the subject matter.
-
The court held that the failure of the trial judge to sua sponte give a limiting instruction regarding prior convictions for the same offense constitutes reversible error.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and that the district court had jurisdiction.
-
Prosecution by a foreign sovereign does not bar subsequent prosecution by the United States on double jeopardy grounds.
-
The court held that the classification of cocaine as a Schedule II narcotic drug under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is constitutional and has a rational basis.
-
Statements made by the defendant to customs agents before being informed of her Miranda rights were inadmissible because she was in custodial interrogation.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the unusual packing of cacti, the defendant's nervousness, his denial of knowledge of a suspicious bag, and prior intelligence, provided probable cause for the warrantless search of the truck.
-
The court held that the Border Patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific articulable facts and rational inferences, and that the subsequent search was justified by consent and probable cause.
-
The court held that the sentencing judge did not err by relying on his understanding of cocaine's properties and did not abuse his discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.
-
The court held that the search of the defendant's vehicle was constitutional and the jury instructions were proper.
-
The court held that the warrantless searches of the pickup truck and U-Haul trailer were justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
-
The court held that the district court was not required to hold a voluntariness hearing as no issue of voluntariness was raised, and Miranda warnings were not applicable to the search request.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and seizure of cocaine were lawful under the circumstances.
-
The court held that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle provided probable cause for a search, rendering the motion to suppress properly denied.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the appellants' vehicle violated their Fourth Amendment rights because the government failed to establish either a border nexus or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
-
The court held that the totality of circumstances provided probable cause for the search of the truck, even without a border search exception.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the United States had jurisdiction over the smugglers' stateless vessel under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, sufficient evidence supported their convictions, and the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
-
Michael Albury was convicted of narcotics and firearm offenses after police discovered cocaine, crack cocaine, N-Benzylpiperazine pills, and firearms in two hotel rooms he occupied. Albury challenged the validity of the search warrant for room 332, arguing that the warrant was ba
-
79 So. 3d 898·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2012-02-17
·cited 7×
Jon Celeste appeals his trafficking in oxycodone conviction, arguing insufficient evidence supported the jury verdict. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed, holding that although Celeste possessed oxycodone pursuant to a valid prescription, the State failed to prove he actua
-