Prejudice To Substantial Rights

43 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Rivera
  944 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1991-10-22 ·cited 73×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Elena Vila and Johnny Rivera for drug offenses. The court held that while the government committed a discovery violation by disclosing Rivera's statement about suitcase ownership late, it did not prejudice his substantial rights. T
• McCoy Gilmore v. United States
  256 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the excision of an informer's name from witness statements, and reversing the conviction on this ground was error.
• United States v. Johns
  734 F.2d 657· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's argument regarding the absence of an alibi witness was improper, it did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the convictions.
• Raines v. State
  65 So. 2d 558· Fla.· 1953-03-31 ·cited 45×
  Raines was convicted of bribery for allegedly extorting $500 from an applicant in exchange for a barbering license while serving on the State Barber Board. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, finding that the trial court's unauthorized separation of the ju
• United States v. Camiel
  689 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a variance between a single mail fraud scheme charged in the indictment and proof of multiple schemes prejudiced the defendants' substantial rights, and acquittal was the proper remedy.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  799 F.2d 649· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the government's failure to provide discovery of a defendant's wallet contents violated Rule 16, and this violation was not harmless error, requiring reversal of that defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Robinson
  544 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony suggesting a third party resembled the bank robber, and the admission of unemployment records to impeach an alibi witness based on an incomplete search, were erroneous evidentiary rulings that prejudiced the defendant's substantial r
• United States v. la Vecchia
  513 F.2d 1210· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while the evidence might not have been sufficient to prove Kurshenoff's participation in the single conspiracy charged, there was no prejudice to his substantial rights requiring reversal.
• United States v. De Simone
  452 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that any errors in denying inspection of grand jury testimony or admitting documentary evidence were harmless and not prejudicial to the defendants' substantial rights. The convictions were affirmed.
• Elvestre Toussaint v. State
  755 So. 2d 170· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-15 ·cited 25×
  Amending an information during trial to correct a clerical error regarding the offender's age does not violate double jeopardy principles if the defendant is not prejudiced.
• United States v. Roth
  736 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of a coconspirator's testimony about his agreement with the government, even without a limiting instruction, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severanc
• Blocker v. Ferguson
  47 So.2d 694· Fla.· 1950-07-18 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an order that granted a motion for a decree on a bill and answer, awarding $23,000 in past-due alimony to a former wife from her deceased ex-husband's estate. The court reversed, finding that the wife's 20-year delay in seeking payment, coupled
• Edgerton v. United States
  143 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1944-06-30 ·cited 22×
• United States v. NOE
  821 F.2d 604· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 19×
  The court reversed Noe's convictions due to a discovery violation but affirmed Rogers' conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Arguelles
  594 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for harboring a fugitive and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or statements not fully disclosed prior to trial, as no prejudice to the appellant's substantial rights was shown.
• Peevey v. State
  820 So. 2d 422· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when the State amended the information on the morning of trial to add a new victim, as it prejudiced the defendant's ability to prepare a defense.
• United States v. Blanchard
  495 F.2d 1329· 1st Cir.· 1974-05-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a search warrant for a regulatory inspection may issue based on administrative standards, not just probable cause of a specific violation, and that a sua sponte amendment of an information is permissible if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rig
• Gonzalez v. State
  503 So. 2d 425· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a juror's brief separation before deliberations, without speaking to anyone, did not prejudice the defendant and did not warrant a new trial. Improper prosecutorial comments were either waived or harmless error.
• United States v. Schurr
  775 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's broad conspiracy allegations and the narrower conspiracy proven at trial was not material because it did not prejudice the defendants' substantial rights.
• United States v. Rivera
  926 F.2d 1564· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-22 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that a discovery violation was not prejudicial, comments on post-arrest silence were harmless error, and a deliberate ignorance instruction, though erroneous, was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of actual knowledge.
• Peterson Baltazare Simbert v. State
  226 So. 3d 883· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-08-23 ·cited 8×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Peterson Simbert's conviction on one count of lewd or lascivious battery after the state amended the charging information mid-trial to allege digital rather than oral penetration. The court held that the amendment changed an essential
• Diaz v. State
  38 So. 3d 791· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-06-09 ·cited 8×
  Guillermo Diaz was convicted of sexual battery and lewd molestation of a child. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction on count III because the trial court improperly allowed the State to amend the charging information mid-trial to change the method of sexual
• Henderson v. State
  810 So. 2d 999· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-02-20 ·cited 8×
  Sherman Henderson was charged with attempted burglary but the state amended the information to charge burglary instead on the morning of trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the continuance, holding that the amendment did not require rev
• State v. Fudge
  645 So. 2d 23· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial to Robert Allen Fudge after a jury deadlocked on most counts of a 47-count indictment arising from automobile hijackings and home invasions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury deadlock was n
• United States v. Singer
  970 F.2d 1414· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, evidence was admissible, discovery violations did not prejudice the defendant, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the sentence was properly calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• Marquenton Huffman v. State
  636 So. 2d 842· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-05-06 ·cited 6×
  Marquenton Huffman appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the information after the jury was sworn, adding the words "Parish Hall" to the burglary count. The appellate court affirmed, finding no prejudice to the defendant's subs
• United States v. Chavez
  845 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants were affirmatively misled by a misleading bill of particulars regarding the identity of supervisees, prejudicing their substantial rights.
• Osteen v. State
  147 So. 3d 678· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-10-01 ·cited 5×
  Raymond Ashley Osteen's probation revocation was reversed because the trial court improperly allowed the State to substantially amend the affidavit of violation of probation during the revocation hearing by dropping one charge and adding five new charges, violating due process pr
• Rosser v. State
  658 So. 2d 175· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-07-26 ·cited 5×
• Gerome v. State
  306 So. 3d 314· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court denied a habeas corpus petition seeking relief based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The petitioner argued his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the charging document during jury selection.
• Jean v. State
  11 So. 3d 421· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed a defendant's convictions for robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm. The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the state to amend the information to add a victim after jury selection, nor in imposing a mandator
• Bell v. State
  930 So. 2d 779· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-05-24 ·cited 4×
  James Bell was convicted of sexual battery on a child, indecent assault, and inducing a sexual performance by a child. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed for a new trial, finding prejudicial error in the State's failure to timely disclose that the child victim intended
• United States v. Brodie
  871 F.2d 125· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the government's use of a secretly recorded conversation, improperly withheld from the defendant under Rule 16, was improper, the defendant suffered no substantial prejudice, and therefore his conviction was affirmed.
• Gunzburg v. United States
  297 F.2d 829· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conviction for concealing assets and that a variance between the indictment and proof did not prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.
• Darby v. State
  748 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-12-23 ·cited 3×
  James Darby appealed his convictions for armed robbery, shooting into a building, and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and sentences, but remanded to vacate the grand theft conviction due to double jeopardy principles.
• Carlson v. State
  166 So. 3d 957· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-06-24 ·cited 2×
  Carlson was convicted of resisting arrest without violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court reversed his resisting arrest conviction because the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the information mid-trial to add a second officer as an alternativ
• Quattrocchi v. State
  17 So. 3d 329· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-07-01 ·cited 2×
  Michael Quattrocchi appeals his conviction on 59 counts of child pornography possession, challenging the trial court's decision to allow the State to amend the information on the morning of trial to correct file creation dates and the denial of his motion for mistrial. The appell
• Patterson v. State
  15th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2013-09-21
  Patterson was convicted of Battery and Disorderly Intoxication after the State amended the Information to add the Disorderly Intoxication charge on the morning of trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion
• Dahl
  Del.· 2007-05-15
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's conviction, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dance academy was a 'school' as defined by statute. The court found that evidence of one teacher instructi
• C.L.W. v. State
  920 So. 2d 109· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-01-20
  The trial court erred by excluding testimony offered to impeach a key witness, and this error was not harmless.
• Young v. State
  632 So. 2d 245· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-02-22
  Horace Leon Young appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, challenging the trial court's allowance of an amended information after jury selection and the refusal to instruct the jury on entrapment. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding no
• United States v. Glenn
  828 F.2d 863· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-10
  A variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof showing separate conspiracies prejudices a defendant if it affects substantial rights, but is harmless error if it does not.
• Cummings v. United States
  131 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1942-11-05
  The court held that an indictment's immaterial and inaccurate description of the defendant's race does not warrant a directed verdict if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.