Prior Conviction Evidence

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

• United States v. Burkhart
  458 F.2d 201· 10th Cir.· 1972-02-14 ·cited 94×
  Evidence of prior Dyer Act convictions is admissible to prove intent and negate accident or mistake in a current Dyer Act charge.
• United States v. Calabrese
  645 F.2d 1379· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the mistrial was declared out of manifest necessity, the denial of change of venue and severance motions was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the admission of co-conspirator statements and other evidence w
• Nelson v. State
  99 Fla. 1032· Fla.· 1930-05-06 ·cited 80×
  Madeline Nelson was convicted of armed robbery alongside two co-defendants for robbing Philip Lavatiatta. On appeal, Nelson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, claiming the conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness, and raised evi
• United States v. German Hernandez-Miranda
  601 F.2d 1104· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court did not err in giving a flight instruction, admitting evidence of bond forfeiture, admitting evidence of a prior conviction, or imposing consecutive sentences.
• Fouts v. State
  374 So. 2d 22· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-07-06 ·cited 62×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an escape conviction, establishing three new rules of law: (1) the nature of a prior crime underlying a lawful confinement cannot be revealed to the jury even though the fact of prior conviction is an essential element of escape; (2)
• Jackson v. State
  545 So. 2d 260· Fla.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 52×
  Douglas Jackson appeals his convictions for multiple murders and kidnapping and death sentences from his third trial for the 1981 murders of five victims in a burned vehicle. The Florida Supreme Court reverses and remands due to improper cross-examination allowing testimony of Ja
• Martin v. State
  86 Fla. 616· Fla.· 1924-01-07 ·cited 51×
  J. A. Martin was convicted of murder in the first degree for killing Henry Dannelly. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the trial court erred in requiring Martin to disclose the nature of his prior criminal conviction, the error was harmless giv
• United States v. Nemeth
  430 F.2d 704· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior conviction, even with a cautionary instruction, was unduly prejudicial and reversible error.
• Acie Hamilton v. United States
  409 F.2d 928· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-01 ·cited 46×
  The admission of a prior conviction for a similar offense, when intent is not an element of the crime charged, is prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial for both defendants.
• United States v. Francesco
  725 F.2d 817· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the government's expert testimony, though scant, was sufficient to support the jury instruction and conviction, and that other issues raised by the defendant were without merit.
• Lockwood v. State
  107 So. 2d 770· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-12-19 ·cited 39×
  Raymond Lockwood appeals his robbery conviction, challenging the trial court's permissibility of questioning him about prior criminal convictions and admitting evidence of those convictions. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that prior convicti
• Abe Washington v. State
  86 Fla. 519· Fla.· 1923-12-08 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that the defendant's intoxication did not negate the specific intent required for first-degree murder. The court found the evidence of premeditation and guilt overwhelming, and any alleged trial errors w
• Smith v. United States
  236 F.2d 260· 8th Cir.· 1956-08-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, limiting cross-examination, instructing the jury, or denying motions for mistrial or acquittal, affirming the conviction.
• Enriquez v. United States
  188 F.2d 313· 9th Cir.· 1951-03-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction and that the admission of hearsay testimony and a prior conviction was not erroneous.
• United States v. Gomez
  927 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after the defendant requested counsel, and following police-initiated discussion of sentencing and cooperation, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and should have been suppressed.
• Parks v. Zitnik
  453 So. 2d 434· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-06-29 ·cited 28×
  Parks appealed a judgment awarding Zitnik damages and sole title to real property acquired during their personal relationship. The court reversed because the trial judge improperly allowed extensive questioning about Parks' criminal history, including convictions unrelated to cre
• United States v. Merrill H. Klein
  515 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant knew he was dealing with a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies.
• United States v. Panczko
  429 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-16 ·cited 26×
  The admission of a defendant's prior conviction was prejudicial error, requiring reversal.
• Julius v. W.J. Johnson
  840 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cautionary instruction regarding the prior conviction, this did not prejudice the defendant. Other claims of ineffective assistance were rejected.
• United States v. Weil
  561 F.2d 1109· 4th Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's assignments of error did not warrant overturning his conviction for aiding and abetting the passing of counterfeit currency.
• Slaughter v. State
  301 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1974-09-25 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and arson of a school building, rejecting constitutional challenges to Florida's conspiracy statute and jury selection procedures, and finding no reversible error in the trial court's conduct.
• United States v. White
  355 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-03 ·cited 24×
• United States v. Davis
  787 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior conviction because the defendant's misleading testimony breached a stipulation, and the conviction was used to correct a misstatement, not solely for impeachment.
• Parks v. Brown
  840 F.2d 1496· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a second-degree murder instruction because the evidence, even when viewed in its entirety, did not rationally permit a jury to find him guilty of the lesser offense while acquitting him of the greater.
• United States v. Bramble
  641 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 15×
  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
• Tavares J. Wright v. State
  213 So. 3d 881· Fla.· 2017-03-16 ·cited 14×
  Tavares Wright was convicted of two first-degree murders, kidnapping, robbery, and carjacking stemming from a crime spree in 2000. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences on direct appeal, and subsequently denied his postconviction motions challengi
• United States v. Smith
  605 F.2d 839· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's late request for a free transcript of a prior mistrial, nor was the introduction of the defendant's guilty plea and references to his criminal record improper or prejudicial.
• McINTOSH v. United States
  309 F.2d 222· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial based on a witness's reference to a parole officer.
• United States v. Girgenti
  197 F.2d 218· 3d Cir.· 1952-02-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant made a sufficient showing to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, thus reversing the contempt conviction.
• Jordan v. State
  171 So. 2d 418· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-02-04 ·cited 11×
  Charles Allen King and John Marvin Jordan were convicted of possession of burglary tools after the trial court improperly admitted testimony about their prior convictions for breaking and entering and grand larceny. The appellate court reversed, holding that evidence of prior cri
• Donald v. Sheriff Wilson
  847 F.2d 1191· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-16 ·cited 10×
  Federal Rule of Evidence 403 cannot be used to limit the introduction of past criminal convictions for impeachment purposes in a civil trial, as Rule 609 exclusively governs this issue.
• Stone v. Green
  796 F.2d 1366· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the erroneous introduction of prior conviction evidence, even if resulting from a denial of severance, was constitutionally harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Lonberger v. Jago
  635 F.2d 1189· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the state failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's prior guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, rendering the conviction constitutionally invalid for sentencing enhancement purposes. However, the court found that the single-stage trial procedure, a
• Braswell v. State
  306 So. 2d 609· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 8×
  Braswell was convicted of a crime after taking the stand in his own defense and initially denying any prior convictions. The prosecutor later revealed a 24-year-old military court-martial conviction for larceny and elicited an admission from Braswell. The appellate court reversed
• Nichols v. State
  231 So. 2d 526· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-02-04 ·cited 7×
  James R. Nichols appealed his conviction on five counts of unlawful sales of intoxicating beverages without a state license, claiming errors in permitting a prior conviction to be presented with current charges, jury confusion, insufficient proof of lack of license, and deficient
• Algar Ferguson v. Judge James A. Knight
  792 F.2d 581· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the use of a prior conviction to prove intent to sell in a second offense trafficking charge, without a limiting instruction, did not violate the Constitution under the Jackson v. Virginia standard.
• Emmit Charles Lyons v. O.L. McCOTTER
  770 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to object to the introduction of the defendant's prior conviction details and failure to request a limiting instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Clardy
  472 F.2d 578· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the admission of prior conviction evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Davis v. United States
  370 F.2d 310· 9th Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while admitting a prior conviction for auto theft was error, it was not prejudicial enough to warrant reversal given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Ward v. State
  343 So. 2d 77· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-03-02 ·cited 5×
  A prior perjury conviction is admissible to impeach a witness's credibility, even if remote in time, and the jury, not the judge, should determine its probative value.
• United States v. Gilliam
  994 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-02 ·cited 4×
  A stipulation of a prior conviction, while carrying a risk of unfair prejudice, is admissible under Rule 403 because its probative value substantially outweighs that risk.
• Thomas v. State
  440 So. 2d 581· Fla.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that consolidating a firearm possession charge with other offenses unfairly prejudices the defendant by allowing introduction of prior conviction evidence that is prejudicial to the non-firearm charges. The Court reversed convictions for aggravated
• Bain v. State
  422 So. 2d 962· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prosecutor's question eliciting the nature of the defendant's prior conviction was improper and prejudicial.
• United States v. Dimitroff
  541 F.2d 629· 6th Cir.· 1976-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the mention of a prior conviction, coupled with a cautionary instruction, did not constitute prejudicial error.
• Mosley v. State
  91 So. 3d 928· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-07-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by prohibiting defense counsel from proffering testimony regarding the victim's alleged drug use on cross-examination after the victim may have minimized his prior conviction.
• Halsell v. State
  672 So. 2d 869· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-04-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for mistrial after the prosecutor referenced a prior conviction that the court had previously excluded.
• Davis v. State
  539 So. 2d 555· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Davis's robbery conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting an out-of-court statement from a witness who testified he had no knowledge of the crime, and in admitting details of the witness's prior conviction. The court
• Saldane v. State
  685 So. 2d 43· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for armed robbery because the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce evidence of the defendant's involvement in a separate, unrelated crime for which he was not on trial. This evidence was unduly prejudicial and outweighed
• Parker v. United States
  391 F.2d 457· D.C. Cir.· 1967-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no errors affecting substantial rights.
• Vander Brooks v. State
  69 Fla. 446· Fla.· 1915-04-20 ·cited 2×
  Vander Brooks was convicted of being a common liquor dealer under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction because the trial court's jury charge failed to correctly state the statutory rule requiring that liquors found in unreasonable quantities must be foun