Sufficiency Of Indictment

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

• United States v. Drew
  722 F.2d 551· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment, when read in its entirety and construed with common sense, along with the jury instructions, was sufficient to apprise the defendants of the charges against them and the essential elements of the offenses.
• United States v. Louie R. Grugette
  678 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term "application" in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 can reasonably include documents submitted to fulfill loan preconditions, and that the restitution condition did not present a ripe equal protection issue.
• United States v. McLENNAN
  672 F.2d 239· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime, the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the jury instructions, while containing some awkward phrasing, were ultimately adequate.
• United States v. Nunez
  668 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment's date specificity was sufficient and that the appellants' other claims lacked merit.
• United States v. Ruttenberg
  625 F.2d 173· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that guilty pleas waive non-jurisdictional defects, and the indictments sufficiently alleged kickbacks under the statute, making the denial of the writ of error coram nobis appropriate.
• Hernandez v. United States
  608 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of testimony was proper, the jury instructions correctly stated the law regarding willful misapplication, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Harold
  588 F.2d 1136· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that imported merchandise is in the constructive custody of customs from its arrival until formal release, and any measurable amount of a controlled substance is sufficient for a possession conviction.
• United States v. Buffington
  578 F.2d 213· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding the indictment sufficient and rejecting claims of Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment violations.
• United States v. Truman Williams
  545 F.2d 1036· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 8×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is not fatally defective for failing to specify the exact place or facility from which goods were stolen, provided it informs the defendant of the offense charged. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of unlawful possessio
• Burchfield v. United States
  544 F.2d 922· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was not so facially defective as to fail to charge an offense, even under collateral review, and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate sentence.
• United States v. Harris
  521 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the jury instructions regarding 'forcibly' and the rereading of testimony were proper. The court affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Delois Willis
  515 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because the word 'embezzle' implicitly charged the necessary felonious intent, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Glup
  482 F.2d 1288· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it contained the essential elements of the offense and adequately informed the defendant of the charges against him.
• United States v. Johnson
  476 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, holding that the indictment was sufficient and the jury's finding on the lawfulness of the order of call was supported by evidence, despite the defendant's claims of procedural irregularities and discriminatory boar
• United States v. Ulysses Gibson
  444 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the taking of fingerprints does not violate the Fifth Amendment and that a postal contract station is within the scope of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115.
• Walker v. United States
  439 F.2d 1114· 6th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it was worded in language that paralleled the federal bank robbery statute and fairly apprised the appellant of the crime charged.
• United States v. Henderson
  434 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Pipefitters Local Union NO. 562
  434 F.2d 1116· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial, finding the jury instructions erroneous by not properly allowing the jury to consider whether contributions were voluntary.
• United States v. Farabee
  411 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because it tracked the language of the statute and provided adequate factual information to the defendant.
• United States v. Vanderberg
  358 F.2d 6· 7th Cir.· 1966-03-07 ·cited 8×
  A bankruptcy adjudication is not subject to collateral attack in a criminal proceeding for concealment of assets, even if the petition lacked proper verification.
• Sibley v. United States
  344 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, the handling of documents was proper, and the sentences imposed were not cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. Jackson
  344 F.2d 158· 3d Cir.· 1965-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an indictment for violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 does not need to name the purchaser of the narcotics, and the defendant was not prejudiced by its omission.
• Boris Zebelman v. United States
  339 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1964-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was legally sufficient to charge an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1302 because the described scheme, involving referral bonuses for car sales, contained an element of chance.
• de Herrera v. United States
  339 F.2d 587· 10th Cir.· 1964-12-14 ·cited 8×
  The indictment was sufficient because the phrase 'or otherwise' in the statute encompasses any holding purpose desired by the captor, and the denial of a separate trial was not an abuse of discretion.
• Foster v. United States
  339 F.2d 188· 10th Cir.· 1964-12-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an indictment's sufficiency, when it clearly endeavors to charge an offense under a statute and the court has jurisdiction, cannot be collaterally attacked via a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
• Taylor v. United States
  334 F.2d 386· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the search incident to a lawful arrest was valid, thus admitting the seized evidence.
• Barber v. Gladden
  327 F.2d 101· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was constitutionally sufficient and that the appellant's factual contentions regarding coercion, judicial bias, and improper sentencing influences were not supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
• Vandersee v. United States
  321 F.2d 57· 3d Cir.· 1963-07-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the defendant was not entitled to a hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel, and the acquittal of co-defendants did not mandate the defendant's acquittal.
• Chereton v. United States
  286 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient because the questions and answers set forth therein clearly showed materiality to the bankruptcy inquiry, and the trial judge's questioning of a witness was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Upchurch
  286 F.2d 516· 4th Cir.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment's use of 'mail matter' was sufficient to charge an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1708, and that other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• Schmidt v. United States
  286 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-13 ·cited 8×
  A motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is not a substitute for a direct appeal and cannot be used to challenge mere trial errors or defects that do not render the judgment void.
• Mead v. State
  110 So. 2d 504· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a trial on an information that is legally insufficient to support a conviction cannot constitute jeopardy, and therefore, an election to proceed on such an information does not bar subsequent prosecution on a valid information.
• Conrad v. United States
  255 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1958-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges of false statements and perjury because the indictment was based on statements made 'in substance and effect,' and the totality of the appellant's testimony, when considered as a whole, did not definitively
• Bennett v. United States
  252 F.2d 97· 10th Cir.· 1958-01-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, did not constitute a reversible error by directing a verdict of guilty.
• United States v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  252 F.2d 99· 9th Cir.· 1958-01-23 ·cited 8×
  An indictment charging a violation of a general statutory provision need not negate exceptions contained in other clauses or sections; the defendant must raise and establish any applicable exceptions.
• Gibson v. United States
  244 F.2d 32· 4th Cir.· 1957-04-27 ·cited 8×
  A misdescription of the sentencing court in an escape indictment does not invalidate the indictment if it otherwise sufficiently charges the offense.
• United States v. Smith
  232 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1956-04-27 ·cited 8×
  A conviction cannot be sustained if the indictment fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the offense charged, especially when it cites a repealed statute and fails to provide adequate notice of the crime.
• Brant v. United States
  218 F.2d 808· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was not so defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to relief on collateral attack.
• Babb v. United States
  210 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1954-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that evidence obtained from seizures, even for a different crime, was admissible if relevant. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for dismissal, bill of particulars, or con
• United States v. Aderman
  191 F.2d 980· 7th Cir.· 1951-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently described the offense and that the overt acts supported the conspiracy charge, affirming the conviction.
• Thomas v. United States
  188 F.2d 6· 8th Cir.· 1951-04-17 ·cited 8×
  Indictments for escape attempts, though not specifying acts, are not fatally defective after conviction and sentence if the defendant was not prejudiced and could have sought a bill of particulars.
• United States v. Lembo
  184 F.2d 411· 3d Cir.· 1950-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The indictment must be dismissed because it is incomprehensible and fails to fairly apprise the defendant of the charges against him.
• Barker v. United States
  178 F.2d 803· 5th Cir.· 1949-12-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective and sufficiently charged an offense under the Fugitive Felon Act.
• Dawes v. Gough
  170 F.2d 396· 5th Cir.· 1948-11-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a habeas corpus writ should issue because the indictment count under which the petitioner was sentenced charged no crime.
• Caldwell v. United States
  160 F.2d 371· 8th Cir.· 1947-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant's motion to correct or vacate his sentence was properly denied because the indictment stated a public offense and the appellant's procedural claims were unsupported.
• United States v. Winnicki
  151 F.2d 56· 7th Cir.· 1945-08-04 ·cited 8×
  The indictment was insufficient because it failed to negate all exceptions to the regulation, specifically the authorization from the War Production Board.
• Audett v. Johnston
  142 F.2d 739· 9th Cir.· 1944-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the sufficiency of an indictment is not reviewable on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that the statute does not criminalize mere intent but requires an overt act of entry motivated by intent.
• Goldsmith v. Sanford
  132 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1942-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge the Parole Board's denial of parole or the sufficiency of an indictment after prior adverse rulings.
• Audett v. United States
  132 F.2d 528· 8th Cir.· 1942-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to support the conviction and sentence, and the motion to vacate was properly denied.
• Sun Chong Lee v. United States
  125 F.2d 95· 9th Cir.· 1942-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged a crime under the relevant statutes, and that the statutes applied to the Territory of Hawaii.