Proof Of Intent

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

• United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
  582 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-25 ·cited 729×
  The dissent argues the majority misinterpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by broadly allowing evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, effectively overruling prior precedent ('Broadway') without sufficient justification.
• United States v. Krulewitch
  145 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1944-08-01 ·cited 111×
  The dissenting judge believes evidence of prior criminal activity was properly admitted and that the prosecution was not required to disclose a witness's prior statement that conflicted with her testimony.
• Beaudine v. United States
  368 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1966-11-17 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the cumulative effect of unduly restricting cross-examination of the key government witness, Mulvey, regarding his prior convictions and potential motivations for testifying, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Chiantese
  560 F.2d 1244· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the "so unless the contrary appears from the evidence" clause in jury instructions, as used in Mann v. United States, impermissibly shifts the burden of proof to the defendant and is reversible error, though not automatically so.
• United States v. O'Connor
  580 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-10 ·cited 81×
  The admission of 'other crimes' evidence was improper because it was not relevant to any disputed issue and was unduly prejudicial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Maestas
  554 F.2d 834· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that evidence of other crimes, seized materials, and witness testimony were properly admitted, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Jones
  913 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the convictions of all defendants for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• Codie v. State
  313 So. 2d 754· Fla.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 64×
  The Florida Supreme Court discharged a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the admission of a failed polygraph test in a robbery prosecution, finding no direct conflict with cited precedent. The court held that polygraph results are admissible upon stipulation, and oral s
• United States v. Cardenas
  895 F.2d 1338· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 61×
  The court held that testimony regarding prior drug use and distribution was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) to contradict the defendant's material testimony.
• Rakes v. United States
  169 F.2d 739· 4th Cir.· 1948-07-02 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting willful misapplication of bank funds was valid, as the evidence supported the jury's findings regarding intent, scheme, and loss to the bank.
• United States v. Fierson
  419 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1969-12-17 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a prior similar offense was proper to prove intent, and the district judge did not abuse discretion.
• Tedesco v. United States
  118 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a witness regarding a separate offense to show intent, and that there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury.
• The Fla. Bar re Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal
  508 So. 2d 1221· Fla.· 1987-05-28 ·cited 57×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved recommended amendments and new instructions for standard jury instructions in criminal cases submitted by the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal), covering sexual battery offenses, theft, DUI manslaughter, entrapment
• United States v. Ekram Manafzadeh
  592 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-23 ·cited 54×
  The admission of evidence of subsequent crimes was improper because intent was not a disputed issue, and the evidence was not relevant to any other issue in the case. Therefore, the conviction is reversed.
• United States v. Dabish
  708 F.2d 240· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 48×
  The admission of prior "other acts" evidence to prove intent for a Hobbs Act violation was proper, and the timing of a limiting instruction is within the trial court's discretion.
• Linden v. United States
  254 F.2d 560· 4th Cir.· 1958-04-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that evidence of actual deception and the manner in which forms were presented was admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction for mail fraud, even if the forms could be interpreted differently upon close reading.
• Lindsey v. United States
  227 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1955-11-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that evidence of a prior, similar offense was admissible to prove intent in a Mann Act prosecution, even if it occurred before the charged offense.
• O'Reilly v. United States
  486 F.2d 208· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-28 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the seizure and subsequent search of the defendant's vehicle were lawful, and evidence of other crimes was admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. York
  933 F.2d 1343· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 36×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's prior murder and insurance fraud was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and motive for the charged crimes, and that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant committed the prior murder.
• Carrullo v. United States
  184 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1950-10-31 ·cited 36×
  The court held that counterfeit bills not directly passed by the defendant were admissible as circumstantial evidence to prove intent and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Spica
  413 F.2d 129· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that admitting evidence of similar offenses to prove intent was proper, and the trial judge's comments did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Moore
  732 F.2d 983· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 32×
  The admission of 'bad acts' testimony was proper because it was relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for proving intent and rebutting entrapment, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• United States v. Robbins
  340 F.2d 684· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the admission of similar transaction evidence and the prosecutor's questioning did not constitute reversible error.
• Rebjebian v. State
  44 So. 2d 81· Fla.· 1949-12-23 ·cited 32×
  This case reviews the sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to steal for a breaking and entering conviction. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that circumstantial evidence strongly supported the intent to commit grand larceny.
• United States v. Bangert
  645 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the in-court identifications were reliable despite potentially suggestive out-of-court procedures, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for destruction of government property.
• Ogden King, Jr. v. State
  545 So. 2d 375· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-31 ·cited 28×
  Ogden King was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his girlfriend during a drug-related incident. While the appellate court affirmed that the indictment's dual theories of death (cocaine and strangulation) were valid and that the evidence was legally sufficient, it
• United States v. Eury
  268 F.2d 517· 2d Cir.· 1959-07-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's intent and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and burden of proof did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Peterson
  808 F.2d 969· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of the 'Williams check' evidence was an abuse of discretion because its probative value for knowledge and credibility was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice, and the error was not harmless.
• United States v. Krohn
  560 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act's interim limits does not warrant dismissal of the indictment, and evidence of other acts is admissible to show a common scheme or plan. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper admission of evidence were als
• Platt v. State
  291 So. 2d 96· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-03-06 ·cited 26×
  Two appellants convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny challenged their convictions on due process and insufficiency of evidence grounds. The court affirmed one burglary conviction but reversed the other, holding that intent to commit grand larceny
• Havelock v. United States
  427 F.2d 987· 10th Cir.· 1970-06-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of a prior incident involving gasoline was admissible to prove scheme and design, and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Williams v. United States
  272 F.2d 40· 8th Cir.· 1959-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of other similar offenses was admissible to prove intent and knowledge, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on its limited use.
• Rumph v. State
  248 So. 2d 526· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Rumph appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the value of property he intended to steal. The court reverses, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the defendant intended to ste
• Evans v. State
  693 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-05-21 ·cited 22×
  Walter Lee Evans was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of 4-year-old Tommie Bush, Jr., whom he beat repeatedly over several months, causing fatal internal injuries. On appeal, Evans challenged the admission of prior abuse evidence und
• United States v. Mayo
  646 F.2d 369· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, double jeopardy claims, prosecutorial impropriety, prison transfer, voir dire, severance, jury instructions, or claims of ineffective counsel or self-incrimination
• Wegman v. United States
  272 F.2d 31· 8th Cir.· 1959-11-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or instructions, and that failure to take exceptions precluded certain appeals.
• United States v. Burkett
  821 F.2d 1306· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence of prior burglaries was admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove intent, cross-examination about other burglaries was permissible, and disclosure of the informant's identity was not required.
• United States v. Doyle E. Campbell
  845 F.2d 1374· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should have excluded testimony of patients not listed in the indictment as it was improperly admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove character rather than intent for the charged offenses.
• United States v. Johnson
  734 F.2d 503· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the inventory search was lawful, evidence of past drug transactions was admissible, and the jury instruction on the lesser included offense was not required.
• United States v. Jiminez-Robles
  415 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug dealings was admissible to prove intent and knowledge, despite the general rule against admitting evidence of prior offenses.
• Stallworth v. State
  538 So. 2d 1296· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-02-10 ·cited 15×
  Kenneth Stallworth appeals convictions for grand theft and dealing in stolen property arising from the sale of a stolen television set. The court reversed the grand theft conviction while affirming the dealing in stolen property conviction, holding that Florida law prohibits dual
• United States v. Hurley
  755 F.2d 788· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 14×
  Evidence of post-escape contacts was admissible to prove intent for aiding and abetting an escape.
• United States v. Castro-Castro
  464 F.2d 336· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the use of a prior acquittal as evidence of guilt for a subsequent crime is subversive and indefensible, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Bradford
  571 F.2d 1351· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other similar transactions to prove intent, as they were closely connected in time and nature to the charged offenses.
• United States v. Isadore Shadletsky
  491 F.2d 677· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prior conviction for selling liquor without a license was admissible to prove intent for a charge of failing to pay the special tax, as the offenses shared similar physical elements and the prior conviction was sufficiently proven.
• United States v. Abraham
  347 F.2d 395· 7th Cir.· 1965-06-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for filing a false claim under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence, jury instructions, or prosecutor's arguments.
• Ladakis v. United States
  283 F.2d 141· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-07 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal the admission of evidence by failing to move for a mistrial after the evidence was stricken and the jury instructed to disregard it.
• United States v. Bradley
  152 F.2d 425· 3d Cir.· 1945-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that testimony regarding similar transactions with another individual was admissible to prove intent in a prosecution for aiding evasion of Selective Service Act requirements.
• United States v. Eddington
  328 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1964-02-18 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars seeking the identity of prosecution witnesses, and that evidence of prior similar conduct and victim's abuse was properly admitted to prove intent and conspiracy.
• United States v. Arias-Montoya
  967 F.2d 708· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a defendant's prior drug conviction was permissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to establish knowledge, even if propensity was a factor in the inference.