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. Bujese
  371 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1967-01-16 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and that the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and proper procedure.
• Worthy v. United States
  328 F.2d 386· 5th Cir.· 1964-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the government cannot constitutionally criminalize a citizen's reentry into the United States, regardless of passport status or prior conduct.
• Umbriaco v. United States
  258 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1958-07-22 ·cited 25×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the charge in Count 2 of the indictment.
• United States v. Franklin
  188 F.2d 182· 7th Cir.· 1951-04-11 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for falsely representing birthplaces, but sufficient for convictions related to falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and failing to register as an alien. The statutes under which the defendant was convicted wer
• United States v. Monjar
  147 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1944-12-01 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the evidence supported the guilty verdicts, and no substantial errors occurred that prejudiced the defendants.
• Walker Bryant v. State
  89 Fla. 26· Fla.· 1925-01-24 ·cited 25×
  Walker Bryant was convicted of arson with intent to defraud insurance companies for burning an insured building. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, rejecting Bryant's argument that the indictment was defective for ambiguously allocating the intent element between th
• United States v. Chaney
  964 F.2d 437· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction and restitution order, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, indictment sufficiency, evidence sufficiency, or restitution calculation.
• United States v. Wylie
  919 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the defendant's objection to surplusage in the indictment was untimely.
• United States v. Staggs
  881 F.2d 1527· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment's Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count was sufficient because the grand jury had identified the defendants with at least three violations, satisfying the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment notice requirement could be met by a bill of
• United States v. Roth
  777 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 24×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant dismissal of the indictment and that there was sufficient evidence for admitting extrajudicial statements.
• United States v. Piccolo
  723 F.2d 1234· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-16 ·cited 24×
  The indictment was insufficient because it lacked the specificity required to link the grand jury's concerns to the evidence presented at trial.
• United States v. MAY
  625 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that conversion requires a serious violation of the government's right to control the use of its property, thus reversing convictions related to unauthorized use of military aircraft. However, convictions for m
• United States v. Balano
  618 F.2d 624· 10th Cir.· 1979-12-18 ·cited 24×·via Indictment Requirements
• United States v. Contris
  592 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 24×
• United States v. Crippen
  579 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 24×
  An indictment for testifying falsely before a grand jury is not defective for failing to include the factual basis for the allegation of materiality, as long as it alleges materiality and the factual basis can be obtained through a bill of particulars.
• United States v. Eucker
  532 F.2d 249· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm Eucker's conviction because the indictment adequately set forth the charges to which he pleaded guilty, and his claims of ignorance or confusion are not supported by the record.
• United States v. Marrifield
  515 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting unlawful gambling businesses requires proof that five or more persons participated in the business in whole or in part during a period exceeding thirty days, not necessarily simultaneously present.
• United States v. Juventino H. Martinez
  496 F.2d 664· 5th Cir.· 1974-06-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's prejudicial remarks and erroneous instructions to the jury deprived the defendants of a fair trial.
• United States v. Walker
  489 F.2d 1353· 7th Cir.· 1973-11-28 ·cited 24×
  The Court held that the Government meets its burden for a "receiving" offense if it demonstrates the firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce, even if the receipt itself was intrastate.
• United States v. McCRAY
  468 F.2d 446· 10th Cir.· 1972-09-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the arrest lawful, the evidence sufficient for conviction, and that an order increasing a sentence without the defendant present is invalid.
• Bryant v. United States
  462 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Count II of the indictment was insufficient for failing to allege a nexus with interstate commerce, but affirmed the conviction on Count I.
• The United States v. Strauss
  452 F.2d 375· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for mail fraud was proper, affirming the denial of his motions to dismiss for speedy trial violations, suppress evidence, and for a new trial based on an insufficient indictment.
• United States v. Rudinsky
  439 F.2d 1074· 6th Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently clear, the admission of unauthenticated exhibits did not constitute plain error, and the appellant was in 'custody' for the purposes of the escape statute.
• Esperti v. United States
  406 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions under the Hobbs Act for robbery and attempted extortion, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• McEWEN v. United States
  390 F.2d 47· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an indictment for assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111 does not need to allege the defendant's knowledge that the officer was a federal agent.
• United States v. Rolland B. McMASTER
  343 F.2d 176· 6th Cir.· 1965-03-25 ·cited 24×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that any error in admitting a co-defendant's statement without a prompt admonition was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against the defendant.
• United States v. Garfoli
  324 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1963-11-22 ·cited 24×
  The indictment was sufficient to charge a conspiracy under Title 21 U.S.C. § 174, and the trial court erred in dismissing it for failure to allege an overt act involving the defendant.
• Palomino v. United States
  318 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1963-07-16 ·cited 24×
  An indictment for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 174 is not fatally defective for failing to explicitly allege knowledge of illegal importation, if such knowledge is necessarily implied by the charge.
• Magnolia Motor & Logging Co. v. United States
  264 F.2d 950· 9th Cir.· 1959-03-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, the jury instruction on land ownership was proper, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• Chow Bing KEW v. United States
  248 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the second count of the indictment was dismissible for lack of jurisdiction due to a fatal omission, but affirmed the conviction on the first count, finding the indictment sufficient and the evidence adequate to prove willful misrepresentation.
• United States v. Ansani
  240 F.2d 216· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that 'trade boosters' are essential parts of gambling devices under the Johnson Act and that the registration requirements of the Act do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also affirmed the trial court's rulings on procedural matters.
• The United States v. Floyd
  228 F.2d 913· 7th Cir.· 1956-01-13 ·cited 24×
  Venue for an offense under the Hobbs Act may be laid in any district where the extortion affects interstate commerce, even if the threats were made elsewhere.
• United States v. Marachowsky
  213 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1954-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial and the motion in arrest of judgment. The court also held that the judge who presided over the trial had proper authority.
• Cohen v. United States
  178 F.2d 588· 6th Cir.· 1949-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute applies to documents made false by fraudulent procurement of signatures, and that the indictment was sufficient. The jury could infer intent to influence the FHA from the use of FHA forms.
• United States v. Fleenor
  177 F.2d 482· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 can be dismissed without a hearing if the motion and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.
• Byers v. United States
  175 F.2d 654· 10th Cir.· 1949-07-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictments were legally sufficient and the sentences were properly imposed, thus denying the motion to vacate.
• United States v. MAX
  156 F.2d 13· 3d Cir.· 1946-05-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the last five counts of the indictment were insufficient because they failed to allege the defendants' knowledge that the ration documents were counterfeit, a required element under the specific provision of the regulation. Additionally, the court found that t
• Conway v. United States
  142 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1944-01-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that assignments of error lacking required procedural detail or proper record were not considered, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Daily
  139 F.2d 7· 7th Cir.· 1943-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the voir dire was properly limited, the Draft Board's proceedings could not be collaterally attacked, and the jury instructions were proper.
• Crutchfield v. United States
  142 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-02 ·cited 24×
  This is a dissent and a motion for en banc review, not a final holding on the merits of the underlying case.
• Bersio v. United States
  124 F.2d 310· 4th Cir.· 1941-12-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute prohibiting tampering with vessels applies to acts done by crew with owner consent, and the indictment was sufficient without alleging ownership.
• Kane v. United States
  120 F.2d 990· 8th Cir.· 1941-06-23 ·cited 24×
  An indictment, when attacked after a jury verdict, is sufficient if the necessary facts appear by fair implication, even if not stated directly, and it adequately protects the defendant from double jeopardy.
• Jones v. Cook
  146 Fla. 253· Fla.· 1941-02-25 ·cited 24×
  Ivan Jones challenged his arrest under municipal ordinances for disturbing the peace and damaging public property via habeas corpus, arguing that defects in the charging warrants were reviewable through that writ. The Florida Supreme Court held that while habeas corpus can test t
• McCaskill v. State
  55 Fla. 117· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 24×
  This case addresses whether an indictment for incest is sufficient if it doesn't explicitly state the defendant's knowledge of the relationship or that the act was unlawful, and whether the female's consent is a necessary element of the crime. The court held that the indictment w
• Weightnovel v. State
  46 Fla. 1· Fla.· 1903-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Frederick Weightnovel was convicted of manslaughter for his role in the death of Irene Randall during an attempted abortion. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that while the information adequately charged manslaughter, hearsay evidence was improperly admi
• Walker v. State
  34 Fla. 167· Fla.· 1894-06-01 ·cited 24×
  Mack and Kenneth Walker were convicted of manslaughter for the murder of Wiley Bentley. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial because the trial court erroneously excluded testimony from Phyllis Walker (Kenneth's wife) based on an outdated rule that wives coul
• Deparvine v. State
  146 So. 3d 1071· Fla.· 2014-04-24 ·cited 23×
  William James Deparvine appeals the denial of his postconviction motion challenging his death sentence for the November 2003 murders of Rick and Karla Van Dusen. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rejection of all ineffective assistance of counsel claims, consti
• United States v. DOE
  878 F.2d 1546· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 23×
  Statements made by appellants regarding their citizenship prior to Miranda warnings were admissible because the inquiry was part of an identification procedure permitted as an exception to Miranda, necessitated by the circumstances, and would have been discovered eventually.
• United States v. Markus
  721 F.2d 442· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 23×
  Each count in an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 2314 must independently meet the $5,000 jurisdictional minimum, and counts cannot be aggregated on appeal if not properly pleaded.
• United States v. Smith
  543 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-13 ·cited 23×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his car and voluntarily made his statement after being informed of his Miranda rights, making the evidence admissible.