Sufficiency Of Indictment

1,362 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• United States v. Stavroulakis
  952 F.2d 686· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a conspiracy to launder money does not require co-conspirators to agree on the specific unlawful activity from which the money originated, and that the indictment sufficiently alleged bank fraud by charging the sale of stolen checks.
• United States v. Vinton Bedonie and Thomas Cly
  913 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal arson statute (18 U.S.C. § 81) includes motor vehicles and that the district court had jurisdiction to try the defendants for arson-murder under federal law, even though the indictment did not specifically reference § 81. The court also found no pl
• United States v. Ahumada-Avalos
  875 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence were valid, affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Vidaure
  861 F.2d 1337· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The determination of whether prior crimes qualify as 'violent felonies' under the Armed Career Criminal Act is a question of law for the judge, not the jury, as it requires statutory construction, not examination of extrinsic evidence.
• United States v. Johnson
  805 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the district court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence.
• United States v. Sherwood Thomas Edrington
  726 F.2d 1029· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 14×
  An indictment for felony escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) is fatally defective if it fails to allege the underlying basis for the defendant's federal custody or confinement.
• United States v. Amos A. Hopkins
  716 F.2d 739· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the scheme to defraud conviction, but the conspiracy conviction was unsupported due to the co-defendant's acquittal. The court also found the mailings were in furtherance of the scheme and the jury instruct
• United States v. Epigmenio Garcia-Geronimo
  663 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the statute prohibits the sale or disposal of counterfeit alien registration cards regardless of whether they are presented as genuine.
• United States v. Ylda
  643 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's silence, though a constitutional violation, was harmless error because it was an isolated incident, not emphasized, and there was substantial evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Johnson
  582 F.2d 1186· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims were not cognizable under § 2255 or lacked merit, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Blake v. Morford
  563 F.2d 248· 6th Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process because the common law indictment form used in Tennessee permitted evidence of underlying felonies to prove premeditation for first-degree murder, and thus he received fair notice of the charges.
• United States v. Mich. Carton Co.
  552 F.2d 198· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a nolo contendere plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects in an indictment, including the misnaming of a defendant, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• United States v. Atchison
  524 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 14×
  A variance between the indictment's charge of kidnapping for ransom and proof of other motives is not fatal if the indictment adequately informs the defendant of the offense and does not prejudice their substantial rights.
• United States v. Ivers
  512 F.2d 121· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and there was substantial evidence to support the conviction for misappropriating bankruptcy estate funds.
• United States v. Mort Christopher Goodman
  457 F.2d 68· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy and substantive counterfeiting offenses, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Keine
  436 F.2d 850· 10th Cir.· 1971-01-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's inadvertent failure to produce a witness statement under the Jencks Act was cured by offering the witness for re-cross-examination, and that the indictment was sufficient and did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• Gearing v. United States
  432 F.2d 1038· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-12 ·cited 14×
  A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requires substantial deficiencies in the indictment, not merely formal ones, especially after a guilty plea.
• United States v. McNAMARA
  422 F.2d 499· 1st Cir.· 1970-01-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective and the witness identification testimony was properly admitted.
• United States v. Pope
  409 F.2d 371· 7th Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings or instructions.
• United States v. Richman
  369 F.2d 465· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged the element of knowledge for mail fraud by using the phrase "for the purpose of executing the scheme," and that other alleged errors were waived or did not constitute plain error.
• Yeloushan v. United States
  339 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 is applicable in multiple defendant cases and does not violate constitutional rights regarding venue, as such rights can be waived.
• Kentha Earl McDOWELL v. United States
  330 F.2d 920· 10th Cir.· 1964-04-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an indictment for violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 is valid even if it does not name the person with whom the illegal narcotics transaction occurred.
• Bellis Robinson v. United States
  313 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that portions of a judgment based on counts that fail to state an offense are void and subject to collateral attack, and that an erroneous parole provision in a sentence reflects the sentencing judge's intent and requires correction.
• Everette Thompson Dawson v. United States
  292 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1961-06-24 ·cited 14×
  A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment on grounds that could have been raised on appeal.
• DE Casaus v. United States
  250 F.2d 150· 9th Cir.· 1957-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the indictment was valid, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to search government records.
• United States v. Knut Einar Heikkinen
  240 F.2d 94· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for failing to depart and failing to apply for travel documents was valid, as the deportation order was properly entered and the defendant was not denied due process.
• Bush v. United States
  218 F.2d 223· 10th Cir.· 1954-12-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the jury's finding that the defendant was carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without paying the required tax.
• United States v. Debrow
  203 F.2d 699· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the name and authority of the person administering the oath are not essential elements of perjury that must be stated in the indictment.
• Brandon v. United States
  190 F.2d 175· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the denial of the motion for a new trial was proper. The judgment on the forgery count is affirmed.
• Rodd v. United States
  165 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1947-12-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 396, the evidence supported the guilty verdicts, and separate sentences were permissible for the two distinct offenses.
• Lowenburg v. United States
  156 F.2d 22· 10th Cir.· 1946-06-18 ·cited 14×
  An indictment charging a defendant with failing to perform assigned duties under the Selective Service Act is insufficient if it does not specify the duties or orders the defendant refused to perform.
• Allred v. United States
  146 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1944-11-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the conviction for embezzlement, and therefore the denial of the motion for a directed verdict was proper.
• United States v. Wagoner
  143 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1944-06-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an indictment omitting essential elements of a statutory offense is fatally defective and cannot be sustained, even if the elements were proven at trial or the indictment was not challenged below.
• Jackson v. United States
  131 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1942-12-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was voluntary and intelligent, the indictment was sufficient, and the federal sentence could run consecutively to the state sentence.
• Kelly v. Johnston
  128 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1942-06-08 ·cited 14×
• Wood v. State
  98 Fla. 703· Fla.· 1929-10-18 ·cited 14×
  Wood and Rhoden were convicted of armed robbery under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, holding that the 1927 robbery statute was unconstitutional due to improper legislative procedure, that the indictment sufficiently described the property despit
• Shumake v. State
  90 Fla. 133· Fla.· 1925-07-10 ·cited 14×
  Charlie Shumake was convicted of shooting into a vehicle on December 25, 1923. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to describe the weapon used, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the indictment's use of the statutory language '
• Donovan Studstill and John Lee Studstill v. State
  83 Fla. 623· Fla.· 1922-05-19 ·cited 14×
  Donovan and John Lee Studstill were convicted of willfully and maliciously cutting a fence belonging to land not their own under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that the indictment was insufficient and that testimony should have
• Denmark v. State
  43 Fla. 182· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a first-degree murder conviction, holding that a defendant waives the right to challenge a juror who was also on the grand jury that indicted him if the challenge is not made before the verdict. The court found the evidence sufficient and other
• Mose Roberson v. State
  42 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1900-01-01 ·cited 14×
  Mose Roberson was convicted of murder and appealed on grounds including denial of a change of venue and alleged defects in the indictment, particularly that it failed to allege the place of death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the indictmen
• Roberts v. State
  26 Fla. 360· Fla.· 1890-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for selling liquor without a license. The court found the indictment sufficiently charged the crime and that the defendant's actions constituted a misdemeanor regardless of any alleged refusal by an officer to grant a permit.
• Scarlett v. State
  25 Fla. 717· Fla.· 1889-06-01 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses. The court found the indictment insufficient because the alleged false pretense related to a future act (payment by check) rather than a past event or existing fact, which is required by the
• United States v. Cobb
  905 F.2d 784· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that an order prohibiting a defendant from discussing ongoing testimony with his attorney during an overnight or weekend recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, requiring reversal of convictions. However, the court affirmed convictions based on jury i
• United States v. Johnson
  804 F.2d 1078· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) can be supported by evidence of the defendant's participation in the bank robbery, even if acquitted of the robbery charge, and that inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible.
• United States v. Hart
  640 F.2d 856· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that an indictment, though unartfully drafted, is sufficient if it can be reasonably construed to charge a crime and the defendant shows no prejudice. Prosecutorial remarks, even if improper, do not constitute reversible error if not flagrant and not objected to at
• United States v. Irving S. Wise t/n Irving Stewart Wise, Jr.
  553 F.2d 1173· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the district court did not err in handling jury instructions, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Duran
  411 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, allowing the government to reopen its case, or in its rulings on the indictment, evidence, and closing arguments.
• Myles v. United States
  170 F.2d 443· 5th Cir.· 1948-11-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that an indictment describing stolen property as "certain stocks, bonds, and watches" was sufficiently clear to inform the defendant of the accusation, and any defect was cured by a guilty plea.
• United States v. Candelario Gutierrez
  978 F.2d 1463· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 12×
• United States v. Shearn Moody, Jr.
  923 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the two counts of bankruptcy fraud were not mutually repugnant and that 18 U.S.C. § 152 ¶ 7 applies to both pre- and post-petition conduct, affirming the convictions.