Sufficiency Of Indictment

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

• United States v. Davila
  964 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, finding no merit in his claims regarding the indictment, evidence, jury instructions, sentencing enhancements, upward departure, or denial of downward departure.
• United States v. Boone
  951 F.2d 1526· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Dehlia Boone did not waive her right to appeal the discrepancy between the oral and written verdicts, and affirmed her conviction based on the written verdict. The court reversed Roger Swayze's perjury conviction on one count due to the literal truth of his an
• United States v. Arlen
  947 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government can establish the "intent to defraud or mislead" requirement for a felony conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 333(b) by showing the defendant intended to defraud or mislead a government agency, not necessarily the purchaser of the drugs. The court also
• United States v. Donahue
  948 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the indictment was sufficient, eyewitness identification was not impermissibly suggestive, hearsay testimony was harmless error, statements made to police were not custodial, and severance was not required.
• United States v. Durham
  941 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that methamphetamine is properly classified as a Schedule II controlled substance and that the trial court's jury instructions were adequate. However, the case is remanded to determine if a Special Assistant United States Attorney was properly supervised, as this c
• United States v. Barnhart
  889 F.2d 1374· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-27 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the indictment's sufficiency, the admission of 'flight' evidence and instructions, the sufficiency of evidence, or the application of sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Koya Olatunji
  872 F.2d 1161· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment's Count Two sufficiently alleged mail fraud, as it described a scheme to obtain student aid through false pretenses and representations, even if those representations were made to the INS rather than directly to the Department of Education.
• United States v. Allard
  864 F.2d 248· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Information was constitutionally sufficient to sustain a mail fraud conviction, even after McNally, because it adequately described a scheme to defraud the hospital.
• United States v. Price
  857 F.2d 234· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 371 cannot stand if based on a scheme to defraud intangible rights, following the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. United States.
• United States v. Bird Lance, Jr.
  848 F.2d 1497· 10th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the McNally decision applies retroactively in § 2255 proceedings, and that convictions based solely on deprivation of intangible rights, without loss of money or property, are invalid.
• United States v. Dunn
  841 F.2d 1026· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion, and the jury instructions regarding coconspirator guilty pleas were sufficient to ensure a fair trial.
• United States v. Gray
  809 F.2d 579· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment, though citing the wrong statute, was sufficient because the facts alleged constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, and the defendant was not prejudiced by the error.
• Franklin v. White
  803 F.2d 416· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner received actual notice of the charges and therefore his due process rights were not violated, affirming the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Colon-Padilla
  770 F.2d 1328· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over offenses committed by a service member on a military reservation and that the defendant's confession was admissible. The indictment was also found to be sufficient.
• United States v. Arbruary Dale Campbell and Larry K. Holmes
  685 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient to state an offense against the United States.
• United States v. Matlock
  675 F.2d 981· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the exclusion of collateral impeachment testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Florine Joyce Opsta
  659 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-15 ·cited 10×
  An indictment for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112 is fatally defective if it fails to allege the essential elements of gross negligence and actual knowledge of danger, as required by circuit precedent, and this defect cannot be cured by evidence presented at trial
• United States v. Strand
  566 F.2d 530· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the delays in bringing the defendants to trial did not violate the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 or relevant district court plans, and the indictment was sufficient.
• United States v. Glassman
  562 F.2d 954· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for knowingly causing the interstate transportation of obscene matters was valid, and all issues raised on appeal were without merit.
• United States v. Fleming
  526 F.2d 191· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was not impermissibly vague and should be reinstated.
• United States v. Alford
  516 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-30 ·cited 10×
  A retrial after a mistrial declared due to a defective indictment is permissible if there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial, but not if the defendant did not consent and the mistrial was not necessitated by a manifest need or was a result of prosecutorial overreaching.
• United States v. Marra
  481 F.2d 1196· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficiently specific and that the defendant was not misled into providing incriminating evidence by IRS agents, thus affirming the denial of his pretrial motions.
• United States v. White
  475 F.2d 1228· 4th Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the crime under 18 U.S.C. § 35(b) by stating the defendant had a destructive substance 'with which he could destroy the aircraft,' implying the necessary intent.
• United States v. Roberts
  465 F.2d 1373· 6th Cir.· 1972-09-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the indictment's failure to allege the value of the stolen goods made the conviction a misdemeanor.
• United States v. Perez
  457 F.2d 555· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 10×
  Convictions for escape are affirmed because the indictments sufficiently alleged facts constituting an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), despite citing the wrong statute, and defendants were not misled. However, sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing because consecut
• United States v. Panzavecchia
  446 F.2d 1293· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's retrial on a new indictment after a prior conviction was reversed did not violate double jeopardy, and his confession was voluntary.
• United States v. Castro
  438 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for receiving illegally imported marihuana was valid, as the statute did not require proof of violation of the Marihuana Tax Act, and the indictment and jury instructions were sufficient.
• United States v. Nabi Ferra
  427 F.2d 1348· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-26 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Hickman
  426 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally used as a pretext and that the evidence presented was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Ellington
  406 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the statutes under which the appellant was convicted are constitutional.
• United States v. Armel
  384 F.2d 51· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions on appeal regarding the indictment's validity, sufficiency of evidence, jury charge, and severance motions were without merit.
• Mendoza v. United States
  365 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding the indictment's sufficiency, denial of counsel, and evidence obtained from an illegal arrest were without merit.
• Stein v. United States
  363 F.2d 587· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-06 ·cited 10×
• August H. Brunjes v. United States
  329 F.2d 339· 7th Cir.· 1964-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the second count of the indictment was sufficient to charge an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), and therefore the denial of the motion to vacate the sentence was proper.
• Michaels Enters., Inc. v. United States
  321 F.2d 913· 8th Cir.· 1963-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for failing to keep and produce required records were valid, as intent to defraud was not an element of the offenses, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Strauss
  285 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The indictment failed to sufficiently allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, paragraph 6, because it did not identify specific property of the bankrupt corporation that was fraudulently transferred.
• Moss v. United States
  263 F.2d 615· 5th Cir.· 1959-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that issues concerning the intrinsic facts of the offense must be raised on direct appeal, not through a collateral proceeding like a motion to correct a sentence.
• Henslee v. United States
  262 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1959-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that rentals collected by a defendant in his official capacity as rents did not constitute 'compensation' under the statute, but affirmed convictions for making false reports to a federal housing authority.
• Wright v. United States
  243 F.2d 546· 6th Cir.· 1957-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The indictment was not defective for failing to specify the exact manner of illegal firearm manufacture, as it sufficiently informed the defendant of the charge by referencing the relevant statute section.
• William Banks v. United States
  239 F.2d 409· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment, despite its poor phrasing, implicitly stated that the victim had lawful charge of the property, thus sufficiently charging an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2114.
• Ornelas v. United States
  236 F.2d 392· 9th Cir.· 1956-08-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment, by excluding premeditation and failing to allege facts constituting malice aforethought (such as commission of arson, rape, burglary, or robbery), only charged second-degree murder, and the trial court erred in compelling the defendant to defen
• United States v. Herschel Forrest Jackson
  235 F.2d 925· 8th Cir.· 1956-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 242, as it alleged actions taken under color of state law that willfully deprived an inhabitant of constitutionally protected rights.
• United States v. Bernhard Deutch
  235 F.2d 853· D.C. Cir.· 1956-07-26 ·cited 10×
  An indictment charging a refusal to answer questions before Congress need not explicitly state the refusal was 'willful' if it alleges the refusal was 'unlawful'.
• Lewis v. State
  93 So. 2d 46· Fla.· 1956-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a petition for writ of error coram nobis was untimely and that the issues raised were either res judicata or waived. The conviction was affirmed.
• McDONOUGH v. United States
  227 F.2d 402· 10th Cir.· 1955-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court had proper jurisdiction, the indictment was sufficient, and evidence was properly admitted or excluded. The conviction is affirmed.
• Rhodes v. United States
  224 F.2d 348· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the search of the automobile was reasonable and incident to a lawful arrest, and that other alleged errors were either not properly preserved for appeal or rendered moot by the conviction on other counts.
• United States v. Tadio
  223 F.2d 759· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the evidence supported the jury's verdict of tax evasion and filing false returns, and any errors in the trial were cured or not prejudicial.
• Shively v. United States (two cases)
  210 F.2d 131· 4th Cir.· 1954-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the forfeiture of the Chevrolet truck and withheld decision on the criminal conviction pending a Supreme Court ruling on a related indictment issue.
• Rowland v. United States
  207 F.2d 621· 9th Cir.· 1953-10-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, affirming the judgment.
• Young v. United States
  178 F.2d 78· 9th Cir.· 1949-11-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged an offense under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 by incorporating the criminal penalties of 38 U.S.C.A. § 715.