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

• United States v. Pacchioli
  718 F.3d 1294· 11th Cir.· 2013-06-19 ·cited 27×
  Three contractors were convicted of conspiracy to bribe and substantive bribery offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) for paying kickbacks to hospital facility managers to obtain service contracts. The central issue was when the statute of limitations begins to run for a § 666(a)(
• United States v. David A. Sturman (90-3147)
  951 F.2d 1466· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the 'defraud' clause of 18 U.S.C. § 371 was applicable to the broad conspiracy charged, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of David Sturman and Ralph Levine. The court also found that the willfulness element for Reuben Sturman's fa
• United States v. Mitchell
  867 F.2d 1232· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. United States, which narrowed the scope of the federal mail fraud statute, is fully retroactive. Therefore, the appellant's conviction under the prior interpretation of the statute is invalid.
• United States v. Brewer
  853 F.2d 1319· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 27×·via Indictment Requirements
  The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) creates a new offense requiring elements to be charged in the indictment and proved at trial, not merely a sentencing enhancement.
• United States v. Butler
  822 F.2d 1191· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 27×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court affirmed convictions, finding that the trial court did not err in denying a bill of particulars, severance, or a good faith jury instruction, and that a juror's improper contact with a defendant was harmless.
• United States v. Harrold
  796 F.2d 1275· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that while the government's reference to the defendant's post-Miranda silence was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found that the exclusion of certain evidence related to the good-faith defens
• United States v. Perry
  638 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the market value of goods stolen from a wholesaler is the wholesale price, not the retail price, and that the indictment's specific date precluded aggregating prior shipments to meet the statutory minimum value.
• Etheridge v. United States
  380 F.2d 804· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-11 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendants' pre-Miranda statements were admissible, and the evidence introduced at trial was not tainted by unlawful government surveillance.
• United States v. Garnes
  258 F.2d 530· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-08 ·cited 27×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the search was lawful as incident to a valid arrest, the indictment was not invalid due to the use of potentially involuntary testimony, and the defendant received a fair trial.
• Elbert Croft v. State
  109 Fla. 188· Fla.· 1933-03-21 ·cited 27×
  Elbert Croft was convicted of robbery in Pinellas County Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the ownership of the property and that the evidence connecting Croft to the robbery was unsatisfact
• Fountain v. State
  92 Fla. 262· Fla.· 1926-07-14 ·cited 27×
  Jerome Fountain was convicted of grand larceny for stealing oranges. He appealed on the ground that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege felonious intent. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the word 'steal' in the indictment sufficiently impli
• Straughter v. State
  83 Fla. 683· Fla.· 1922-05-31 ·cited 27×
  Willie Straughter was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of James Stephens and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the indictment alleged an impossible date (September 31st), though the court was split on w
• United States v. Bonallo
  858 F.2d 1427· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-07 ·cited 26×
  A scheme to defraud a bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 does not require the misrepresentation to precede the transfer of money or property; the indictment was sufficient, and the evidence supported conviction on 11 of 12 counts.
• United States v. Rawle
  845 F.2d 1244· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was not reversible error, and the indictment under the Travel Act was sufficient.
• United States v. Amend
  791 F.2d 1120· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-22 ·cited 26×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court affirmed the conviction for continuing criminal enterprise but vacated forfeiture orders based on a general jury finding, affirming forfeiture of specifically identified assets.
• United States v. Palzer
  745 F.2d 1350· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for making a material false statement, and the indictment for failure to report currency was valid despite challenges to the form referenced. Therefore, retrial on both counts is permissible.
• United States v. Williams
  679 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the indictment's count one is deficient for failing to adequately allege the interstate commerce element of the Hobbs Act offense.
• United States v. Rowena Owen Garner
  663 F.2d 834· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 26×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial because the pretrial notice of appeal was from a non-appealable order, and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
• McEACHERN v. State
  388 So. 2d 244· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-20 ·cited 26×
  A former Chief Deputy Sheriff was convicted of two counts of grand larceny for misappropriating investigative funds. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing because the indictment failed to charge the defendant with the
• United States v. Gerrold E. Stevens
  612 F.2d 1226· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the co-conspirator's testimony was admissible, the indictment sufficiently stated public offenses, a travel act violation was proven, and the conspiracy and travel act counts were distinct offenses.
• Atwell Junior Conner v. Auger
  595 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while some claims were properly denied, others related to the application of the felony-murder rule were unexhausted and should be dismissed without prejudice for state courts to address first.
• United States v. Dyba
  554 F.2d 417· 10th Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was legally sufficient, the Allen charge was not prejudicial, the evidence was sufficient, the prosecutor's comments were not reversible error, and the refusal to disclose the informant's identity was proper.
• United States v. Eddy
  549 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 26×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the Attorney General's republication of controlled substance schedules was adequate, and Eddy's arrest and the government's discovery practices did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Pandilidis
  524 F.2d 644· 6th Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 26×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that an amendment to a misdemeanor indictment by a bill of particulars, even if it corrects a material date, does not require automatic reversal if the defendant had prior notice and suffered no actual prejudice.
• United States v. Heath
  509 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-26 ·cited 26×
  A terminated Klamath Indian cannot be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, but an indictment alleging murder of an enrolled Warm Springs Indian by a defendant stipulating to Indian status is sufficient and any error in charging under § 1153 instead of § 1152 is harmless.
• United States v. Curtis
  506 F.2d 985· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature and character of the scheme to defraud, relying on conclusory language rather than specific facts.
• United States v. Trexler
  474 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that jury instructions regarding intent, including omissions and inferring intent from acts, were proper, and that the indictment sufficiently charged the offense even if actual loss did not occur.
• United States v. Anderson
  447 F.2d 833· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, but the admission of tax assessor testimony regarding property values was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial for most counts. However, other evidence supported the convictions for Counts II and III.
• Garrett v. United States
  396 F.2d 489· C.C.P.A.· 1968-06-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that controlling stockholders who exercise control over a national bank, even indirectly, are persons 'connected in any capacity' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. § 656, and can be prosecuted for willfully misapplying bank funds.
• United States v. Cobb
  397 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1968-06-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence of prior and subsequent transactions was admissible to show intent, and venue was sufficiently proven.
• Woodring v. United States
  376 F.2d 619· 10th Cir.· 1967-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was properly admitted, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial.
• Aggers v. United States
  366 F.2d 744· 8th Cir.· 1966-10-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts and that no prejudicial error was committed during the trial for either defendant.
• Evans v. United States
  349 F.2d 653· 5th Cir.· 1965-08-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment's allegations were sufficient to apprise the accused of the charges, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support convictions for engaging in the business of accepting wagers and willfully failing to file tax returns.
• United States v. Pasha
  332 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1964-05-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the search warrants were valid, the admission of telephone conversations was proper, and the evidence was admissible against all defendants.
• Reno v. United States
  317 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.
• Williams v. United States
  278 F.2d 535· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to defraud and that the information was not defective for failing to explicitly state the defendant 'knowingly' caused the checks to be deposited in the mail.
• United States v. Calhoun
  257 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1958-07-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the conspiracy count of the indictment was fatally defective due to a missing element, requiring reversal of the convictions.
• Londos v. United States
  240 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for transporting a forged security in foreign commerce and that the indictment was adequate.
• Jones v. Pescor
  169 F.2d 853· 8th Cir.· 1948-09-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a claim of being compelled to testify against oneself in violation of the Fifth Amendment is of such fundamental nature that it requires examination, even on habeas corpus.
• United States v. Wodiska
  147 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1945-01-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the appellant knowingly and fraudulently concealed cash from the bankruptcy trustee.
• Dunne v. United States
  138 F.2d 137· 8th Cir.· 1943-09-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the challenged sections of the Act (9, 10, and 11) are valid, and the indictment was sufficient.
• Graham v. United States
  120 F.2d 543· 10th Cir.· 1941-05-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, did not eliminate the reasonable doubt standard.
• Weathers v. United States
  117 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1941-02-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper argument, which implied the defendant and his counsel suborned perjury, constituted prejudicial error because the trial court failed to intervene.
• State v. Coleman
  131 Fla. 872· Fla.· 1938-04-04 ·cited 26×
  In this habeas corpus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower court's quashing of the writ. The court addressed the meaning of "exact" under Florida's bribery/extortion statute and clarified that the offense requires an unlawful demand and receipt of compensation a
• Potter v. State
  91 Fla. 938· Fla.· 1926-05-17 ·cited 26×
  Henry and Leola Potter were tried and convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in sustaining the State's demurrer to Potter's plea of autrefois acquit (former acqu
• Barineau v. State
  71 Fla. 598· Fla.· 1916-05-31 ·cited 26×
  A. L. Barineau was convicted of unlawfully dealing in liquors in a county that had voted against liquor sales, as a second offender. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that the indictment sufficiently alleged the prior conviction element required to establ
• United States v. Jenkins
  884 F.2d 433· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court improperly limited cross-examination regarding a witness's affidavit, but the error was harmless. The indictment was sufficiently specific, but the restitution condition on probation was unlawful. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence
• United States v. Goldberg
  756 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the indictment adequately alleged that the defendants conspired to violate the Bank Secrecy Act's reporting requirements, as they could be considered a financial institution engaged in the business of dealing in currency.
• United States v. Smith
  692 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, venue was proper, coconspirator testimony was admissible, tape recordings were properly admitted, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• DeBENEDICTIS v. Louie L. Wainwright & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Fla.
  674 F.2d 841· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the petitioners' habeas corpus petitions were properly denied because the information was not fatally defective and the admission of certain testimony did not violate their constitutional rights.