Sufficiency Of Indictment

1,362 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 155 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jent v. State
  408 So. 2d 1024· Fla.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 302×·via Indictment Requirements
  William Jent appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence following the brutal rape and burning death of a young woman in a Florida game preserve. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the conviction and sentence, rejecting multiple appellate challenges including
• The United States v. Honorable W. Harold COX
  342 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 268×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that a United States Attorney's signature is essential to the validity of an indictment and that the decision to sign or withhold a signature is an executive discretionary power that courts cannot coerce.
• United States v. Polizzi
  500 F.2d 856· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-30 ·cited 232×·via Indictment Validity
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the appellants' conduct violated the federal Travel Act by engaging in a business enterprise involving gambling offenses under Nevada law, specifically by failing to disclose hidden interests in a licensed gambling operation to sta
• United States v. Sperling
  506 F.2d 1323· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-10 ·cited 231×
  The court held that the government's failure to produce a key witness's letter, required under the Jencks Act, was prejudicial for some defendants, requiring a new trial on conspiracy charges, but not for others due to overwhelming independent evidence.
• Lancelot Armstrong v. State
  642 So. 2d 730· Fla.· 1994-08-11 ·cited 227×
  Lancelot Armstrong was convicted of robbery, attempted first-degree murder, and first-degree murder in connection with a restaurant robbery that resulted in the fatal shooting of a deputy sheriff. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence, rejecting 24
• United States v. Diecidue
  603 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 226×
  A RICO conspiracy indictment adequately alleges an essential element when it charges defendants with willfully and knowingly conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c) and describes the nature of the racketeering activities composing the alleged pattern. The definition of 'enter
• Akin v. State
  86 Fla. 564· Fla.· 1923-12-20 ·cited 211×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a forgery conviction due to prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court found these remarks, which misstated the law and introduced extraneous information, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Brown
  540 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 206×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conviction for extortion under the Hobbs Act and mail fraud, and that the indictment was not defective.
• United States v. Bascaro
  742 F.2d 1335· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 192×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court held that marijuana offenses can be the subject of a RICO charge and that wiretap applications, even if amended, are valid if probable cause exists independently of challenged information.
• United States v. Kahn
  381 F.2d 824· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 185×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the credibility and lying witness instructions were not erroneous, the denial of a mistrial upon a co-defendant's guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of severance was proper.
• United States v. Giese
  597 F.2d 1170· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 179×
  The court held that the introduction and use of a book as evidence during trial was not plain error, even if potentially cumulative, as it was relevant to conspiratorial association and the defendant's own testimony opened the door for cross-examination on the matter.
• United States v. Milan Bagaric
  706 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 176×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) applies to enterprises with mixed political and economic motives, as long as there is a pattern of racketeering activity and an enterprise, and the conduct implicates RICO's remedial purposes.
• United States v. Addonizio
  451 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 176×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, not multiplicious or duplicitous, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for a continuance or change of venue.
• Garcia v. State
  492 So. 2d 360· Fla.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 169×
  Garcia was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, three robberies, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, receiving two death sentences. On appeal, Garcia challenged his right-to-be-present claims, the admissibility of his statements, various trial and sentencing proced
• United States v. Pheaster
  544 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-19 ·cited 165×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy, finding sufficient evidence of interstate transportation and admitting the victim's hearsay statement.
• Adams v. State
  28 Fla. 511· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 164×
  William Adams was convicted of murdering James Moore and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding multiple trial errors including improper jury instructions on malice/premeditation, the defendant's removal f
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• Shushan v. United States
  117 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1941-01-18 ·cited 155×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a scheme to defraud under the mail fraud statute and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a continuance or mistrial, nor err in admitting certain evidence.
• United States v. Watson
  594 F.2d 1330· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 149×
  The dissent argues that the evidence presented does not support a conspiracy conviction for the defendants.
• Chase v. The State of Fla. ex rel. H. L. Burch
  93 Fla. 963· Fla.· 1927-05-02 ·cited 144×
  Sheriff Chase appealed the discharge of H. L. Burch on habeas corpus after his arrest pursuant to an extradition warrant from Georgia. The Florida Supreme Court held that Burch was a fugitive from justice subject to extradition because he was bodily present in Georgia when the cr
• Mathis v. State
  45 Fla. 46· Fla.· 1903-01-01 ·cited 143×
  Luther Mathis and Judson Mathis appeal their convictions for murder (Judson) and accessory before the fact (Luther) from a Hamilton County Circuit Court trial. The Florida Supreme Court addresses numerous procedural errors relating to jury selection, examination of witnesses, jud
• United States v. Winter
  663 F.2d 1120· 1st Cir.· 1981-10-30 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the Government's use of a non-statutory immunity agreement with a key witness was permissible and did not violate defendants' rights, and that the jury's decision to credit the witness's testimony was within their prerogative.
• DuBOISE v. State
  520 So. 2d 260· Fla.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 141×
  Robert Earl DuBoise was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted sexual battery, with the trial court imposing a death sentence despite the jury's unanimous recommendation of life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and reversed the arrest of ju
• Knight v. State
  338 So. 2d 201· Fla.· 1976-09-30 ·cited 141×
  Thomas Knight was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of Lillian and Sydney Gans during a robbery/kidnapping, and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial c
• United States v. Cauble
  706 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 140×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the RICO convictions, the indictment was adequate, and the forfeiture was lawful.
• United States v. Johnson
  575 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 139×
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, nor between the bill of particulars and the proof, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to define statutory terms like 'organizer' or 'substantial income'.
• Loux v. United States
  389 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 138×
  The court held that defendants waived rights to capital case procedures by agreeing not to seek the death penalty. It also found no reversible error in issues concerning grand jury testimony, indictment sufficiency, witness limitations, shackling, separate trials, mistrials, and
• United States v. Gironda
  758 F.2d 1201· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 137×
• Pell v. State
  97 Fla. 650· Fla.· 1929-04-30 ·cited 137×
  Eddie Pell was convicted of murder in the second degree for killing D. E. Walker. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding that while the indictment was valid and the trial court properly overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, reversible error occurred in the admission of
• United States v. Calvert
  523 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 130×·via Indictment Validity
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy, finding no merit in his challenges to the prosecution's authority, publicity, sufficiency of evidence, or evidentiary rulings.
• Thalheim v. State
  38 Fla. 169· Fla.· 1896-06-01 ·cited 130×
  Carl Thalheim was convicted of embezzling funds belonging to a foreign corporation (Anglo-Continental Guano Works) while serving as its agent in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding multiple errors in jury instructions regarding the am
• United States v. Riley Harrington Keller, III
  916 F.2d 628· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 128×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that jury instructions constructively amended the indictment on Count Three, violating the Fifth Amendment, but found sufficient evidence for the conspiracy charge. The court also held that a district court's informed decision not to depart downward from Sentencing
• Pena v. State
  901 So. 2d 781· Fla.· 2005-02-24 ·cited 122×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court commits fundamental error by omitting jury instructions on the age element of first-degree murder by drug distribution and on excusable and justifiable homicide when the evidence does not support those defenses. The court
• United States v. Bohonus
  628 F.2d 1167· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, can be applied to schemes involving employee disloyalty and the deprivation of intangible rights, and that the indictment provided sufficient notice to the defendant.
• Lewis v. State
  55 Fla. 54· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 121×
  Andrew Lewis was convicted of embezzlement by a Walton County jury for fraudulently converting $50 belonging to the Walton Land & Timber Company, for which he was an agent/servant. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment adequately described
• United States v. Silverman
  430 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-01 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge the essential element of interstate commerce, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that union funds were used for private benefit or with sham authorization, supporting convictions under 29 U.S.C.
• United States v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  121 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1941-05-01 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the manufacturer's restriction on purchasers and sub-purchasers of its cars, which discriminated between potential buyers and interfered with competitive forces, constituted an illegal restraint of trade.
• United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez
  269 F.3d 1250· 11th Cir.· 2001-10-17 ·cited 114×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of the Sanchezes. The concurring judges argued that no Apprendi error occurred because the sentences did not exceed the statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). They also contended that the "Rogers error" did not apply bec
• United States v. Perkins
  748 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 112×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that juror misconduct, specifically regarding a juror's undisclosed involvement in prior legal proceedings and knowledge of the defendant, warranted a new trial.
• Ekberg v. United States
  167 F.2d 380· 1st Cir.· 1948-03-25 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the indictment's wording was sufficient to charge an offense, but the separate sentencing on count 1 was improper.
• United States v. Radetsky
  535 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the submission of a bill of particulars to the jury was not prejudicial and that the issue of materiality of representations in Medicare claims should be left to the jury.
• United States v. Bernstein
  533 F.2d 775· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-04 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error by allowing the jury to determine as a question of fact whether defendants were held to an undefined standard of exercising 'proper credit judgment'.
• Turf Ctr., Inc. v. United States
  325 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-10 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the statute 18 U.S.C. § 1952 is constitutional, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Rich
  518 F.2d 980· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-25 ·cited 107×
  The court held that tape recordings and transcripts of conversations with a cooperating informant were admissible, and that the special parole statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
• NYE & Nissen v. United States
  168 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1948-06-21 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the convictions for conspiracy and false claims, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant reversal.
• Marteney v. United States
  216 F.2d 760· 10th Cir.· 1954-11-03 ·cited 106×
  The court held that an indictment alleging the interstate transportation of a warehouse receipt that was factually false in its representations, but genuine in its execution, does not state an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
• United States v. Anderson
  532 F.2d 1218· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-23 ·cited 105×
  The dissenting judge would reverse convictions because the government proved a different offense than the one charged by the grand jury.
• United States v. Peskin
  527 F.2d 71· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 103×
  The court affirmed Peskin's convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the federal jurisdictional elements of the Travel Act and that his constitutional rights were not violated by the IRS audits.
• United States v. Covelli
  738 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 102×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court held that the arrest of Robert Covelli was based on probable cause, and the admission of certain evidence, including details of the murder and prior weapon possession, was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed Covelli's convictions.
• Las Vegas Merch. Plumbers Ass'n v. United States
  210 F.2d 732· 9th Cir.· 1954-02-01 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a violation of the Sherman Act and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also found the trial court's jury instructions and procedural compliance with Rule 30 to be proper.