Specific Instances Of Conduct

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

• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• Jaggers v. State
  536 So. 2d 321· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-12-20 ·cited 122×
  Jaggers was convicted of three counts of sexual battery against children, but the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed all convictions, finding that the state failed to prove penetration (an essential element) for two counts, improperly admitted prior inconsistent statements
• United States v. Whitehead
  618 F.2d 523· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 65×
  The court held that prosecutorial comments and evidentiary rulings did not deprive appellants of a fair trial, affirming their convictions.
• 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.
• McELVEEN v. State
  415 So. 2d 746· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-05-18 ·cited 52×
  McElveen appeals his convictions for burglary with assault and sexual battery, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual conduct and reputation. The court reverses in part, holding that evidence of the victim's reputation for unchasti
• Hendricks v. State
  34 So. 3d 819· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-05-26 ·cited 46×
  Ronald Hendricks was convicted of battery and two counts of sexual battery on a child. On appeal, he challenged the exclusion of character evidence regarding his reputation for sexual morality and the trial court's handling of the jury's request to review trial testimony. The app
• Dupree v. State
  615 So. 2d 713· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-01-11 ·cited 39×
  Tony Dupree was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in the death of Clara Lawrence. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously instructed the jur
• United States v. Ramos
  933 F.2d 968· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, limited defense witness testimony, excluded polygraph evidence, and correctly refused to investigate agents' conduct.
• United States v. Barrett
  766 F.2d 609· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were not erroneously refused.
• United States v. Quinn L. Polsinelli
  649 F.2d 793· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant's character witnesses, which assumed the defendant's guilt of the charged offenses, was improper and prejudicial error.
• E. L. Cheeney Co. & Edmon Lewis Fregia v. Gates
  346 F.2d 197· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting evidence of specific prior charges for driving while intoxicated was error, and that while the presumption of scope of employment was not conclusively rebutted as a matter of law, the evidence was sufficient to require jury submission.
• United States v. Manos
  848 F.2d 1427· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, denial of a continuance, or the prosecutor's closing argument.
• United States v. Curtis
  644 F.2d 263· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence and the cross-examination of character witnesses were permissible.
• United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc.
  760 F.2d 527· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts, offered for a purpose other than proving character and more probative than prejudicial, is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) even if it could also be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b).
• United States v. Oshatz
  912 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority's rule excluding guilt-assuming hypothetical questions to opinion character witnesses is overly restrictive and ignores the discretion of trial judges.
• United States v. Lambinus
  747 F.2d 592· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding outrageous government conduct, erroneous admission of evidence, improper voir dire, and exclusion of financial condition testimony lacked merit.
• Wrobel v. State
  410 So. 2d 950· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-02-17 ·cited 16×
  Wrobel was convicted of trafficking in stolen property after the trial court granted the state's motion to prohibit him from testifying that he had never been convicted of a crime. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law permits character evidence only through repu
• Pantoja v. State
  990 So. 2d 626· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-09-04 ·cited 15×
  Juan Pantoja appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence that the victim had previously made a false accusation of sexual abuse against her uncle. The First District Court of Appeal affirms, hol
• United States v. Arvie Ray Burch
  490 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in curtailing cross-examination regarding a witness's alleged solicitation for prostitution, as the inquiry was barred by the witness's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and risked undue prejudice.
• Hiller Arthur Hayes v. United States
  367 F.2d 216· 10th Cir.· 1966-10-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jurisdiction, admission of evidence, autopsy testimony, or restriction of character evidence, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Simpson
  709 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence challenged by the appellant, finding that the evidence was either part of the conspiracy, admissible under evidentiary rules for impeachment or intent, or harmless error.
• Pitts v. State
  263 So. 3d 834· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-02-05 ·cited 10×
  Samuel Pitts appealed his sexual battery conviction challenging the trial court's admission of collateral crime evidence and exclusion of good character evidence. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the collateral crime evidence was properly a
• United States v. Aversa
  984 F.2d 493· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court's announced standard for currency law violations is sufficiently close to the subjective standard in Cheek to avoid punishing those with an innocent state of mind.
• United States v. James B. Frost (89-5144/5145) & Charles L. Griffin (89-5146/5147)
  914 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, bribery, and misapplication of bank funds, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.
• United States v. Isidro Farias-Farias
  925 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1991-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about his prior arrests and the nature of those arrests, as this evidence was admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence of guilt, and any potential error was ha
• United States v. Rubin
  733 F.2d 837· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the second indictment without prejudice due to a miscalculation of the Speedy Trial Act period, and that restrictions on cross-examination and defense witness testimony were not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Evans
  569 F.2d 209· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while Evans's conviction was affirmed, Whitehead's conviction must be vacated due to the late appointment of counsel and denial of a continuance.
• Bonilla v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  955 F.2d 150· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of the plaintiff's prior and subsequent speeding tickets, as this evidence was not admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) or 608(b) and likely influenced the jury's verdict.
• Bright v. Shimoda
  819 F.2d 227· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge committed constitutional error by precluding inquiry into the witness's knowledge of the victim's specific violent conduct during cross-examination.
• United States v. Smith
  792 F.2d 441· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant who procures a witness's absence waives confrontation and hearsay objections to the witness's prior statement, and that the admission of a redacted, interlocking confession, even without a limiting instruction, was permissible.
• United States v. Talamante
  981 F.2d 1153· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence of the victim's prior violent conduct was harmless error, and the trial court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injury.
• United States v. Hedgcorth
  873 F.2d 1307· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the napalm firebombs constructed by the defendants qualified as 'destructive devices' under federal law, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial.
• Polypack, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-18 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Nestlé's Omnibus Motion in Limine, excluding certain evidence related to service agreement invoices and employee performance reviews while allowing evidence of set-off and limiting broad characterizations of employee conduct.
• Brown v. State
  300 So. 3d 332· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-07-06 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for second-degree murder, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of the victim's criminal judgment and sentence. The court held this evidence was not relevant to the defendant's state of mind for self-defense.
• Ramirez v. Rosalia's, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-19
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence concerning prior lawsuits, other business entities, and the plaintiff's personal conduct.
• Vaughn v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2022-04-13
  The court held that while certain statements from the plaintiff's military disability claim might be admissible for impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, evidence of alleged forgeries is generally inadmissible due to remoteness, lack of prior investigation, and the risk of
• Jenkins v. State
  14 Fla. L. Weekly 2445· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-05-31
  A trial court has discretion to impose a sentence less than the full suspended sentence upon revocation of community control, and the court's knowing exercise of that discretion by choosing to impose the full sentence is not reversible error.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. James Brady & Sarah Brady Civil Action No.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2009-07-31
  The court held that the impeachment evidence against witness Gary Noble is admissible, but the method of proof determines whether the motion to continue the trial is granted. If plaintiffs agree to the admission of the affidavits of probable cause into evidence, the trial will no
• United States v. Lashmett
  965 F.2d 179· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-22
  The court held that the exclusion of extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements and opinion testimony regarding character was harmless error, but vacated the restitution order due to plain error for failing to consider the defendant's ability to pay.
• Todorovich v. Wolfner
  555 So. 2d 372· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-10-17