Specific Intent Vs. General Intent

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

• State v. Gray
  435 So. 2d 816· Fla.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 188×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal's decision that reversed Gray's conviction for witness tampering under section 918.14(3)(a)1, holding that scienter and specific intent are not required elements of the crime and therefore need not be alleged in the
• Linehan v. State
  476 So. 2d 1262· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 163×
  Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to arson, a general intent crime, and therefore does not apply to first-degree felony murder when arson is the underlying felony. Second-degree murder is a necessarily lesser included offense of first-degree felony murder, and failure to in
• United States v. Bohle
  445 F.2d 54· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-02 ·cited 101×
• United States v. Irwin
  354 F.2d 192· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-10 ·cited 66×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 201(f) is not unconstitutionally vague and that the jury instructions regarding intent were adequate.
• State v. Sanborn
  533 So. 2d 1169· Fla.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 58×
  The Supreme Court of Florida held that false imprisonment is a necessarily lesser included offense of kidnapping. This decision resolved a conflict between appellate districts and clarified the relationship between these two offenses under Florida law.
• 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. Ruiz
  932 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-17 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed Ruiz's conviction for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine but vacated his sentence due to an error in applying the Sentencing Guidelines regarding the quantity of drugs.
• United States v. Harrelson
  705 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 50×
  The court held that specific intent to deceive is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen a suppression hearing without sufficient factual allegations.
• United States v. Zarattini
  552 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the grand jury process was not abused, discovery rules were followed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were adequate, leading to the affirmance of the convictions.
• United States v. MacHi
  811 F.2d 991· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a scheme to defraud a person by promising to reduce their sentence, even if the defendants never intended to fulfill the promise, constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 because the natural and probable consequence of such a scheme is to impe
• United States v. Thalia Adderly and Simeon Adderly, Sr.
  529 F.2d 1178· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the admission of a prior conviction as evidence of intent, even during the government's case in chief, was permissible under the peculiar circumstances where the defense's reliance on lack of knowledge or innocent intent could be anticipated from a prior trial
• Zordan v. Gerald "Bud" Page
  500 So. 2d 608· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-12-19 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment denying insurance coverage for alleged sexual fondling of a minor, holding that the trial court improperly decided an unresolved factual issue regarding whether the insured specifically intended to cause injury. The court he
• United States v. Bailey
  585 F.2d 1087· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on the definition of escape and by refusing to allow the jury to consider the defense of duress based on an erroneous application of a 'return requirement'.
• United States v. Sanchez
  914 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no plain error in the jury instructions and upholding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. S & VEE Cartage Co., Inc.
  704 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1027 applies to employers, not just fiduciaries, and that a corporation can conspire with its officers. The jury instructions on 'knowingly' were sufficient.
• Watkins v. State
  705 So. 2d 938· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-02 ·cited 28×
  Cedric Watkins appeals his conviction for attempted second-degree murder after shooting a victim twice in the legs. The court affirms the conviction, rejecting Watkins's argument that the victim's testimony suggesting the bullets bounced off the ground undermined the verdict, and
• United States v. Reiswitz
  941 F.2d 488· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the inclusion of a state robbery as an overt act in a federal conspiracy indictment was permissible and that the jury instructions on conspiracy and aiding and abetting were proper.
• United States v. Holmes
  594 F.2d 1167· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause derived from an informant's tip corroborated by other evidence, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Jansen
  475 F.2d 312· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant with a prior misdemeanor conviction after the defendant initially denied any prior convictions, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• Sult v. State
  906 So. 2d 1013· Fla.· 2005-06-23 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida Statute § 843.085, which criminalizes the wearing or displaying of law enforcement indicia or titles without authorization, is unconstitutional as overbroad, vague, and violative of substantive due process because it lacks a specific in
• United States v. Agnes
  753 F.2d 293· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a claim-of-right defense is not applicable to Hobbs Act extortion charges, and that the district court did not err in excluding evidence or instructing the jury on this matter.
• Somers v. United States
  355 So. 3d 887· Fla.· 2022-11-17 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered two certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit regarding whether Florida's assault statute under § 784.011(1) requires specific intent to direct a threat at another person. The Court held that the statute does require such intent, meaning Flo
• Hahn v. State
  626 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 19×
  Harvey Hahn appeals his conviction for attempted second-degree murder on three grounds: failure to conduct a Richardson hearing for discovery violations, improper character attack on a defense witness, and allowance of a last-minute amendment changing the charge from aggravated b
• United States v. NIX
  501 F.2d 516· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction, finding the evidence overwhelmingly supported the defendant's intent to escape, and that intoxication was not a valid defense under the circumstances.
• United States v. Hanson
  618 F.2d 1261· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of justification, in its instructions regarding assault and intoxication, or in its handling of lesser included offenses, cross-examination, voir dire, and
• United States v. Liparota
  735 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) requires only general intent, not specific intent, for conviction, and that a defendant must admit to the commission of the offenses to raise an entrapment defense.
• United States v. Martin
  783 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant had adequate notice of the lesser included offense, even though not explicitly charged, because the facts and circumstances presented at trial and the court's explicit consideration of the lesser offense provided actual notice.
• United States v. Jewett
  438 F.2d 495· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Indian land title and in giving a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
• United States v. Reno Soundingsides
  820 F.2d 1232· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts testimony and the handling of lost exculpatory evidence constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Lewis
  780 F.2d 1140· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of a prior altercation was admissible, that assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. § 113(f) requires general intent, and that jury instructions on the unavailability of insanity and intoxication defenses were proper.
• United States v. Fitzgerald
  882 F.2d 397· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 113(f) is not void for vagueness and the indictment was sufficient. The term 'serious bodily injury' is understandable by common persons, and the indictment tracked the statute's language.
• United States v. Espinoza-Leon
  873 F.2d 743· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for illegal re-entry and that the Sentencing Guidelines were constitutional and properly applied.
• United States v. Virgilio Patricio Flores
  753 F.2d 1499· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the statute does not require specific intent and that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to the compelled disclosure.
• United States v. Ivey
  949 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment and jury instructions were proper, the evidence was sufficient, and the defenses of entrapment and outrageous government conduct were not supported by the evidence.
• United States v. Longee
  603 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The admission of one defendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a co-defendant, when the declarant does not testify, violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes plain error, requiring reversal of the co-defendant's conviction.
• United States v. Moye
  951 F.2d 59· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug offense, in its jury instructions regarding intent, or in limiting closing argument time.
• United States v. Billie
  667 F. Supp. 1485· S.D. Fla.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The Endangered Species Act applies to non-commercial hunting by Indians on reservations, and the Act does not require specific intent to violate its provisions.
• Aromin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  908 F.2d 812· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for assault and battery did not extend to the insured's criminal act of shooting the victim, as it fell under the intentional injury exclusion and public policy against insuring such acts.
• State v. Sanborn
  533 So. 2d 1147· Fla.· 1988-11-23
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether false imprisonment is a necessarily lesser included offense of kidnapping. The Court held that false imprisonment is indeed a necessarily lesser included offense because the statutes are ident
• United States v. Kelly
  569 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-20
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on jury instructions, continuances, severance, attorney-client privilege, or mistrials.
• Burke v. United States
  282 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1960-09-15
  The court held that a general intent to cause harm, not a specific intent to inflict bodily injury, is a material element of assault with a dangerous weapon under Alaska law.