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

• Jones v. State
  18 Fla. 889· Fla.· 1882-01-01 ·cited 22×
  Moses Jones was convicted of burglary with intent to commit larceny based on an indictment returned by a grand jury that included members summoned from the body of the county to fill a deficiency. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that courts have discretion to fill gra
• Ladd v. State
  17 Fla. 215· Fla.· 1879-01-01 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses because the indictment was legally insufficient. The court also noted that a juror who was a County Commissioner was disqualified, which would have been another ground for reversal.
• United States v. Deangelo Lenard Johnson
  981 F.3d 1171· 11th Cir.· 2020-12-02 ·cited 21×
  Deangelo Johnson was convicted of possessing a firearm while having a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and appealed after the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States clarified that the government must prove a defen
• United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez
  777 F.2d 454· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, separate convictions for distribution and possession were appropriate, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the indictment was sufficient. The court affirmed the convictions.
• Battle v. State
  365 So. 2d 1035· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-12-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that Florida lacked jurisdiction over the solicitation charge because the crime was completed outside of Florida, and the conspiracy charge was dismissed due to vagueness.
• United States v. Carr
  582 F.2d 242· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the government is not required to plead and prove that a person named on a loan application did not exist or that the defendant lacked authorization to use their name.
• United States v. Moraites
  456 F.2d 435· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged the elements of misapplication of bank funds and that the evidence supported the conviction for conspiracy and substantive misapplication charges.
• Portnoy v. United States
  316 F.2d 486· 1st Cir.· 1963-05-01 ·cited 21×
  An indictment alleging an assault on a federal officer "on account of" the performance of their duties sufficiently implies the defendant's awareness of the victim's official status, even without explicit allegation of scienter.
• Kittleson v. State
  152 Fla. 242· Fla.· 1942-10-02 ·cited 21×
  Kittleson challenges his arrest via habeas corpus, arguing that the information against him fails to charge any criminal offense. The Florida Supreme Court agrees, holding that the vague charges of lewdness lack sufficient specificity to inform the accused of what conduct constit
• Frances v. the State
  6 Fla. 306· Fla.· 1855-02-01 ·cited 21×
  Frances, an enslaved woman, was convicted of assault and battery and sentenced to corporal punishment. On appeal, she challenged the indictment's sufficiency, jury procedures, and the trial court's legal rulings, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction, finding no r
• United States v. Thomas
  893 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the federal child pornography statutes apply to extraterritorial acts and that the indictment and jury instructions were sufficient.
• Humphrey v. Lynaugh
  861 F.2d 875· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 20×·via Indictment Validity
  A defect in an Ohio indictment, such as the grand jury foreman failing to sign it, does not deprive the Ohio court of jurisdiction, and therefore, a Texas court may use such a conviction for sentence enhancement.
• United States v. McCARTY
  862 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was not impermissibly vague and the search of the defendant's car was lawful, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Scanzello
  832 F.2d 18· 3d Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the value of stolen goods is a necessary element for a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371 when the object of the conspiracy is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, and this element must be alleged in the indictment.
• United States v. Holcomb
  797 F.2d 1320· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Mann Act counts were insufficient due to the indictment's failure to mention the use of a common carrier, and that insufficient evidence supported Holcomb's convictions on other counts.
• United States v. Metzger
  778 F.2d 1195· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence seized from the demolished vehicle was admissible, the indictment was sufficient, and certain documents were admissible under hearsay exceptions. However, the court reversed convictions related to the use of an unregistered firearm and making a destru
• United States v. Esposito
  771 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that any variance between the indictment and proof was harmless, and that the district court did not err in denying motions related to spoliation, investigator misconduct, or defective Travel Act counts.
• United States v. Gordon
  638 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that marijuana seized by the Coast Guard was government property subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(f), and that the indictment and statute sufficiently covered the theft of this property, with 'value' being broadly construed.
• United States v. Bass
  562 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to connect the defendant to the conspiracy, the indictment was not fatally flawed, and the admission of co-conspirators' guilty pleas did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Chenaur
  552 F.2d 294· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Chenaur of aiding and abetting fraud against a federally insured savings and loan association and making a false statement to a government agency.
• United States v. Sanabria
  548 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 20×
  The government may appeal a district court's decision to exclude a basis for criminal liability from an indictment, even if not formally a separate count, provided double jeopardy does not prohibit further prosecution.
• United States v. Wilson
  506 F.2d 1252· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-13 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Weersing
  415 F.2d 130· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective for failing to allege 'wilfully' when it alleged 'knowingly,' and that issues not raised in the trial court, such as the regularity of the induction order and the basis for denying deferment, are generally not grounds for rever
• United States v. Parisi
  365 F.2d 601· 6th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the convictions, and the jury instructions and rulings were proper.
• United States v. Laverick
  348 F.2d 708· 3d Cir.· 1965-07-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on entrapment were sufficient and that the defendants' arguments regarding the indictment and cross-examination were without merit.
• Henderson v. State
  174 So. 2d 73· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-04-13 ·cited 20×·via Indictment Requirements
  Henderson appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following his 1963 robbery conviction and 19-year sentence. The court reversed and remanded for a hearing on his claim that his court-appointed counsel failed to adequately represent him by refusing to discu
• Isadore Blumenfield v. United States
  306 F.2d 892· 8th Cir.· 1962-08-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was not void for vagueness and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns, although the scope of the false statement should be limited.
• Link v. United States
  295 F.2d 259· 8th Cir.· 1961-10-27 ·cited 20×
  A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment based on sufficiency of the indictment or proof after conviction and dismissal of a direct appeal.
• Fiano v. United States
  291 F.2d 113· 9th Cir.· 1961-05-17 ·cited 20×
  A conviction sustained on appeal cannot be vacated by a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the sufficiency of the indictment, unless the indictment is so fatally defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.
• Stegall v. United States
  259 F.2d 83· 6th Cir.· 1958-06-04 ·cited 20×
  A motion to vacate judgment under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is not the proper vehicle to attack the sufficiency of an indictment if the sentencing court had jurisdiction and the indictment appears to charge an offense.
• Davis v. United States
  253 F.2d 24· 6th Cir.· 1958-03-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the circumstantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy.
• United States v. Corliss Lamont
  236 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1956-08-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictments were fatally defective because they failed to allege that the inquiry was within the scope of the subcommittee's authority.
• Fay Heasley v. United States
  218 F.2d 86· 8th Cir.· 1955-01-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the net worth summarization was admissible, and the jury instructions were correct, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
• Michener v. United States
  181 F.2d 911· 8th Cir.· 1950-04-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's motion to vacate judgment and sentence was properly denied because his plea of guilty was not obtained by misrepresentation and his constitutional rights were not violated.
• Carter v. United States
  173 F.2d 684· 10th Cir.· 1949-03-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it charged murder in the language of a statutory form, which implicitly included the element of malice.
• Kramer v. United States
  166 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1948-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's motions to reconsider sentence and withdraw his nolo contendere plea were properly denied, and the judgment and sentence should be affirmed.
• Morton v. Welch
  162 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1947-06-20 ·cited 20×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that alleged errors during a criminal trial, including issues with the indictment, jury selection, and trial counsel, do not constitute a gross violation of constitutional rights sufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief.
• Elder v. United States
  142 F.2d 199· 9th Cir.· 1944-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to state a crime, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions.
• Hopper v. United States
  142 F.2d 167· 9th Cir.· 1942-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.
• Williams v. State
  92 Fla. 648· Fla.· 1926-08-17 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for malicious destruction of property. The court found the indictment sufficient, the evidence supported the jury's verdict of willful and malicious intent, and a procedural omission regarding arraignment and plea was not a fundamen
• Everett v. State
  33 Fla. 661· Fla.· 1894-01-01 ·cited 20×
  The indictment charging Madison Everett as feloniously present aiding, abetting, inciting and assisting in the murder was sufficiently specific to permit the admission of evidence against him, as it alleged the manner of the killing by William H. Everett and charged Madison's fel
• Cook v. State
  25 Fla. 698· Fla.· 1889-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for violating a local option statute. The court found the indictment fatally defective because it failed to allege specific facts showing the local option election was properly held according to statutory requirements, thus not brin
• United States v. Jenkins
  785 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-27 ·cited 19×
  Proof of federal insurance is not an element of the offense under the first prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 1010, and a defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by failing to assert it during grand jury or deposition testimony.
• United States v. Mouton
  657 F.2d 736· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the conviction, affirming the judgment below.
• United States v. Krogstad
  576 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the non-hearsay evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for causing, aiding, and abetting the submission of a false audit report, and that the indictment was not fatally defective.
• Grene v. United States
  360 F.2d 585· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a prior appellate decision on the merits, which found ample evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, precludes a subsequent motion to vacate sentence based on an alleged fatal variance between allegations and proof.
• United States v. Strauss
  283 F.2d 155· 5th Cir.· 1960-10-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that count eight of the indictment was legally sufficient to charge a conspiracy to violate bankruptcy laws, even if it failed to adequately charge mail fraud.
• Rudin v. United States
  254 F.2d 45· 6th Cir.· 1958-04-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the indictment was timely filed, sufficiently charged an offense, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Hamner v. United States
  134 F.2d 592· 5th Cir.· 1943-03-29 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge believes the indictment counts are valid and the evidence supports a conviction.
• Clark v. State
  68 Fla. 433· Fla.· 1914-12-01 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for embezzlement because the trial court improperly admitted testimony given by the defendant in bankruptcy proceedings. The court found this violated the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.