Presumption Of Intent

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

• Mannke v. Benjamin Moore & Co.
  375 F.2d 281· 3d Cir.· 1967-03-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the validity of a release, nor in opening a default judgment.
• Haugen v. United States
  153 F.2d 850· 9th Cir.· 1946-02-13 ·cited 18×
  A defendant cannot claim former jeopardy based on a prior indictment that failed to state an offense, nor can they complain of invited error when their own attorney introduced the evidence leading to conviction.
• Alton Waye v. Townley
  871 F.2d 18· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to a jury instruction, thus the procedural bar foreclosed review of the Sandstrom violation.
• Dean v. Young
  777 F.2d 1239· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court holds that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's finding of fact regarding the prosecutor's questioning is entitled to deference, and the jury instruction given is sufficiently different from that in Francis v. Franklin to warrant affirmance.
• Wiley v. Gary Rayl & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  767 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption of criminal intent unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant.
• Patterson v. Austin
  728 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding the jury instruction constitutional and the defendant not prejudiced by any alleged defect.
• Hearn v. Elton Floyd James
  677 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a presumption of intent, while potentially erroneous for murder, was harmless error for a voluntary manslaughter conviction because intent is not a required element. The court also held that the trial court's ruling did not improper
• United States v. Williams
  665 F.2d 107· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that admitting testimony about the defendant's silence during interrogation after Miranda warnings and giving a jury instruction that a person intends the natural consequences of their acts constituted plain error violating the Fifth Amendment and due process right
• Glenn v. United States
  420 F.2d 1323· D.C. Cir.· 1969-07-23 ·cited 16×
  A jury verdict must be specific and unambiguous; a conviction cannot stand on an equivocal verdict that does not clearly indicate which of two offenses the jury found the defendant guilty of.
• Garland v. Maggio
  717 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a jury instruction creating a presumption of intent, while unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of intent. The court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Morgan v. State
  392 So. 2d 1315· Fla.· 1981-01-15 ·cited 15×
  James A. Morgan, a 16-year-old convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed on the basis that the bifurcated trial procedure used at his trial violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption of intent. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and vacated
• Burger v. Kemp
  785 F.2d 890· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the jury instruction on intent was constitutionally infirm, the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly proved intent and the defendant did not affirmatively raise intent as an issue.
• Rollins v. Maggio
  711 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to object to the jury instruction at trial, barring federal habeas review.
• Ford v. Israel
  701 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the state trial court's interpretation of Wisconsin's local counsel rule unconstitutionally deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice.
• United States v. Shiue
  650 F.2d 919· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for kidnapping and interstate transportation was supported by sufficient evidence, and that prosecutorial and judicial comments, as well as jury instructions, did not deprive him of a fair trial.
• Martin v. State
  323 So. 2d 666· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-11-18 ·cited 14×
  Martin was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident with personal injury. He appealed on the ground that evidence of a concussion he sustained proved he lacked the willfulness required by the statute, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that lack of mental capacity is
• Lawman v. State
  98 So. 69· Ala. Ct. App.· 1922-05-16 ·cited 13×
  Lawman was convicted of killing William Abbott following a roadside altercation where Lawman struck Abbott multiple times with a stick. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the law presumes a person intends the natural and probable consequenc
• Rodriguez v. Young
  906 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding that while counsel's failure to move for suppression of identification testimony was objectively unreasonable, the identification was sufficiently reliable to be admissible, and there was no miscarriage of justi
• United States v. Thoma
  713 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instruction on intent created a permissive presumption, not a conclusive or burden-shifting one, and that the refusal to give a specific cautionary instruction on eyewitness identification was not reversible error.
• Rivera v. Coombe
  683 F.2d 697· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion incorrectly upholds a jury instruction on intent that violates the Supreme Court's precedent in Sandstrom v. Montana.
• Dixon v. Manning J. Davis
  155 So. 2d 189· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-07-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the phrase 'share and share alike' in a will, when devising property to beneficiaries including a married couple, clearly evidences an intent to create a tenancy in common, overriding the presumption of tenancy by the entirety.
• Rock v. Zimmerman
  959 F.2d 1237· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an improper jury instruction regarding intent was not harmless error because the jury struggled with the presumption and was repeatedly misinstructed.
• Healy v. Maggio
  706 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and insufficient evidence does not warrant habeas relief.
• Callahan v. LeFEVRE
  605 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1979-09-06 ·cited 10×
  A jury instruction that effectively directed a verdict of guilty on an element of the offense, by focusing the jury solely on the testimony of two witnesses and failing to provide a standard for belief, infected the entire trial and violated due process.
• McDaniel Brayboy v. Scully
  695 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court's opinion, while not explicitly stated as a holding in this concurring opinion, implies that the jury charge was permissible under current circuit law, despite reservations.
• Dudley v. Dalsheim
  686 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 8×
  A federal court cannot review a state prisoner's habeas corpus claim if the prisoner failed to properly raise the claim in state court, absent cause and prejudice.
• Tweety v. Mitchell
  682 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writ of habeas corpus, finding that a jury instruction violated constitutional rights and that the procedural bar of a contemporaneous objection rule was improperly applied.
• Benton v. United States
  232 F.2d 341· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-01 ·cited 8×
• Morissette v. United States
  187 F.2d 427· 6th Cir.· 1951-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting knowing conversion of government property does not require proof of felonious intent, and a mistaken belief of abandonment is not a defense.
• Geist v. Prudence Realization Corp.
  122 F.2d 503· 2d Cir.· 1941-08-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that under New York law, a guarantor of mortgage certificates with an interest in the mortgage cannot share in the collateral until certificate holders are paid, unless there is a clear reservation of parity rights.
• Dick v. Kemp
  833 F.2d 1448· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion on intent was not harmless error because the issue of intent was squarely before the jury and the evidence of intent was not overwhelming.
• Logan v. Abshire
  778 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Sandstrom error in the jury instructions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus the district court erred in granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
• Richard L. Church v. Kincheloe
  767 F.2d 639· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes that counsel's failure to object to an unconstitutional jury instruction and failure to properly present an intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Wilson v. Procunier
  747 F.2d 251· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's failure to raise the jury instruction issue on direct appeal constitutes a procedural default for which he has not shown cause.
• Zelenka v. Israel
  699 F.2d 421· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition must be dismissed if it contains any unexhausted claims, even if other claims are exhausted.
• MacPHERSON v. MacPHERSON
  496 F.2d 258· 6th Cir.· 1974-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a bigamous marriage, even if annulled, is considered a valid 'remarriage' under a separation agreement, terminating the husband's support obligation, as Connecticut law, which governs the agreement, rejects the 'relation back' doctrine and equitable exceptions
• Gabe Lippman v. State
  72 Fla. 428· Fla.· 1916-12-05 ·cited 6×
  Gabe Lippman, a wholesale liquor dealer, appealed the forfeiture and destruction order of 41 cases of intoxicating liquors seized by the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decree, finding that the state failed to comply with the
• State v. Petruzzelli
  374 So. 2d 13· Fla.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while a presumption of intent within the statute was unconstitutional, the statute itself did not violate the one-subject rule and the seizure of the electric meter did not constitute an illegal search and seizure.
• Payne v. LeFEVRE
  825 F.2d 702· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-04 ·cited 4×
• United States v. Thuna
  786 F.2d 437· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in redacting a statement, admitting rebuttal evidence, or giving jury instructions that allowed permissive inferences regarding the defendant's knowledge of stolen goods.
• Ramirez v. Jones
  683 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 4×
  A petitioner's failure to object at trial does not preclude federal habeas review if the state appellate court considered the merits, but the failure to object remains a factor in the federal court's analysis.
• Shears v. Israel
  712 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed unless the petitioner amends the petition to delete the unexhausted claims.
• Hernandez v. Rayl
  944 F.2d 794· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proving intent cannot be considered harmless error when the evidence does not compel a guilty verdict independently of the presumption.
• Thurman Dickey v. Lewis
  859 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction presuming intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon, while unconstitutional, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of intent. The court also affirmed that no state procedural bar precluded federal review.
• Alexander v. Foltz
  838 F.2d 140· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the presumption of intent and implied malice were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to a new trial.
• Ross CAR Rental & Leasing, Inc. v. Padgett
  278 So. 2d 667· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-06-08 ·cited 2×
  In this malicious prosecution action, the court held that Ross Car Rental had probable cause as a matter of law to institute car theft proceedings against a customer who failed to return a leased vehicle by the contractual return date, relying on a Florida statute that creates a
• Wells v. State
  807 So. 2d 132· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-01-30 ·cited 1×
  William Wells appeals his conviction for two counts of issuing worthless checks in violation of Florida law. The appellate court affirms, rejecting Wells's arguments regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and various procedural and constitutional claims.
• In re MacQUOWN v. MacQUOWN
  717 F.2d 859· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that for purposes of determining whether a transfer occurred within one year of bankruptcy under § 14(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the relevant date is when the deed is recorded, not when it is executed, especially when the transfer is gratuitous.
• Vinton Alrick Graham v. State
  964 So. 2d 758· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-29
  Graham was convicted of burglary, grand theft, and resisting an officer without violence after police stopped him in a private condominium complex based on a report of a suspicious person on the sixth floor. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the officers
• In re Rexplore Drilling, Inc. v. Petro Supply Co., Inc.
  971 F.2d 1219· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-05
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have addressed the preemption issue or remanded it for consideration, and that the garnishment was not a preferential transfer under state law.