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 sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of sentencing errors and ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
The court held that the proffered testimony of the deceased co-defendant's attorney was inadmissible hearsay, even if it were not privileged, because it lacked trustworthiness and did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) or 804(b)(5).
-
The court held that the defendant waived her right to challenge the legality of the search and seizure by failing to file a timely motion to suppress evidence, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue on appeal.
-
The court held that a routine citizenship check at a temporary Border Patrol checkpoint, similar to those at permanent checkpoints, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that the search of the vehicle was consensual.
-
The court held that the admission of a witness's prior statement, even if erroneous under hearsay rules or the confrontation clause, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
-
The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and such error is not harmless if the evidence against the defendant is not overwhelming.
-
557 So. 2d 673·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1990-03-02
Gerald Green was convicted of both possession and sale of cocaine arising from a single transaction. The court reversed his conviction for possession, holding that where a defendant sells drugs and simultaneously divests himself of his entire inventory, separate convictions for b
-
The court held that the district court must hold a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's second confession, as the circumstances surrounding it may have involved official coercion.
-
The court held that a counsel's decision to call a witness, knowing the government might call them at trial, is a matter of trial strategy and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel or a due process violation.
-
The court denied the defendant's motion to recuse, finding no nexus between the prior appellate opinion or alleged sentencing disparities and the current judge's impartiality.
-
The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of cocaine involved was 500 grams or more, triggering the enhanced penalty provisions.
-
-
Evidence discovered accidentally during a lawful search for a different offense is admissible, and a new trial based on cumulative or irrelevant newly discovered evidence is not warranted.
-
The court held that the stop and search of the vehicle were lawful under parole search regulations and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and the exclusion of defense photographs was not an abuse of discretion.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy, and that his statements were properly admitted.
-
The court held that fingerprint evidence was admissible to connect the defendant to the offense and that pretrial detention was proper under the Bail Reform Act.
-
The court held that a subsequent guilty verdict by the petit jury renders harmless any conceivable error in the grand jury charging decision, including alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence obtained through the use of a Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) device, as a sufficient foundation was laid regarding its reliability for generic identification and the operator's expertise.
-
The court held that suppression of evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the agents did not use patient records to initiate or substantiate criminal charges against the defendant, and the "fatal blow" came from another individual's statement.
-
The Court reversed the Magistrate's pre-trial detention order, finding that the defendant rebutted the presumption of detention and setting conditions for release.
-
The court held that the disappearance of the M/V San Juan, while unfortunate, did not prejudice the defendants' due process rights or impair their counsel's ability to represent them, thus denying the motion to dismiss.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in calculating excludable days under the Speedy Trial Act, and thus the defendant's trial did not violate the Act's seventy-day limit.
-
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the vessel was 'without nationality' under 21 U.S.C.A. § 955b(d), thus subjecting it to U.S. jurisdiction for drug offenses.
-
The court held that the warrantless arrest and searches of the vehicle were justified under exceptions to the warrant requirement, including reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and the automobile exception.
-
The court held that the statute 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955a(c) is constitutional and applies extraterritorially, and that the vessel was within the 'customs waters' of the United States due to a US-UK agreement.
-
Appellant was charged with drug trafficking and related offenses after a controlled drug buy. The trial court denied suppression motions without holding a formal evidentiary hearing as required by Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(h)(3). The appellate court reversed and reman
-
The court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were admissible because they were voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from any potential illegal detention, and that the inventory search was valid.
-
The use of a trained dog to sniff luggage for narcotics does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, and a minor grammatical error in a search warrant does not invalidate it.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, affirming the conviction.
-
The court held that a juror's initial confusion during polling does not invalidate a guilty verdict if the juror ultimately and unequivocally affirms the verdict. The court also held that an instruction on a lesser included offense is not required when the evidence makes it incon
-
422 So. 2d 14·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1982-07-07
Valium found in a hotel room rented to appellant's brother, combined with appellant's participation in money counting and sales planning, raises suspicion but does not prove dominion and control sufficient for constructive possession conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant's automobile's passenger compartment, including a container found therein, was permissible as incident to a lawful arrest.
-
406 So. 2d 1089·
Fla.·
1981-10-08
Parker challenges his four-year probation sentence for conspiracy to possess cannabis, arguing that under the applicable statute, possession of over 100 pounds is a third-degree felony (making conspiracy a first-degree misdemeanor with a one-year maximum), not a second-degree fel
-
391 So. 2d 289·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1980-12-09
Three defendants were convicted by jury of conspiracy to sell cannabis but acquitted of possession with intent to sell. The appellate court reversed the conspiracy convictions, holding that the evidence established at most aiding and abetting in a drug transaction, which is insuf
-
The court held that evidence of prior misconduct was admissible to prove intent or knowledge.
-
The court held that the charge of possession with intent to distribute was valid even after a portion of the cocaine was distributed, and that the jury instruction regarding the legality of synthetic cocaine was not prejudicial error.
-
The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including suspicious movements and admissions, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion, and even probable cause, to search the motor home.
-
The court held that evidence seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant is admissible, even if obtained after an allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest, if the evidence is not the fruit of that arrest.
-
The court held that the jury could infer guilt for importation of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented.
-
The court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the checkpoint's status, probable cause for the search based on marijuana odor, and the admissibility of officer testimony were without merit.
-
The court held that there was substantial evidence to sustain the conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
-
The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by ample evidence and that the trial court did not commit reversible error.
-
345 So. 2d 848·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1977-05-10
-
The court held that the Border Patrol agent's stop and search were valid under pre-Almeida-Sanchez law, and the subsequent ruling in Brignoni-Ponce should not be applied retroactively to this case.
-
The court held that the district judge's question to the jury amounted to testimony about a fact, which was prejudicial error and deprived the appellant of a fair trial.
-
The court held that the search of a vehicle at the Sierra Blanca permanent border checkpoint by border agents was constitutional.
-
The court held that the appellant's conviction for simple possession was valid, as it did not rely on the unconstitutional presumption, but the sentence was vacated due to the district court misapprehending the applicable sentencing range.
-
-
The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle at a stationary border patrol checkpoint was legal under the circuit's law at the time of the stop.
-
The court held that the cumulative effect of two evidentiary errors, admitting testimony about a penitentiary release and offering marijuana, prejudiced the defendant and denied him a fair trial.