Sufficiency Of Indictment

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

• Pickens v. United States
  123 F.2d 333· 5th Cir.· 1941-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to sustain the sentence imposed, even if the indorsement on the indictment was incomplete.
• Sasser v. State
  79 Fla. 490· Fla.· 1920-04-13 ·cited 8×
  A. B. Sasser was convicted of unlawfully selling a mule subject to a chattel mortgage without the lienholder's written consent. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his challenges to the sufficiency and clarity of the indictment.
• Cook v. State
  51 Fla. 36· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction, holding that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to adequately apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• West v. State
  45 Fla. 118· Fla.· 1903-01-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for forgery, holding that the indictment was insufficient. The court found the indictment failed to properly set out the forged instrument and did not sufficiently allege that the instrument was the subject of forgery.
• Will Teal v. State
  43 Fla. 580· Fla.· 1901-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The court found the indictment sufficient and rejected claims of error regarding the denial of motions for arrest of judgment and a new trial, as well as the exclusion of evidence.
• Maloy v. State
  39 Fla. 432· Fla.· 1897-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for fraudulently altering an animal's mark. The court found no merit in the defendant's assignments of error, including claims about improper evidence, objectionable remarks by the State Attorney, and a misspelled word in the indict
• Heaton v. United States
  353 F.2d 288· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently described the unlawfully imported property and that the regulation was a valid exercise of authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
• Nunley v. United States
  339 F.2d 442· 10th Cir.· 1964-12-14 ·cited 7×
  An indictment for violating federal narcotic laws is sufficient even if it does not name the purchaser, and a judgment of conviction bars further prosecution.
• United States v. Seeger
  303 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 7×
  An indictment for contempt of Congress under 2 U.S.C.A. § 192 is defective if it fails to accurately allege the source of the subcommittee's authority to conduct the investigation.
• United States v. Strewl
  162 F.2d 819· 2d Cir.· 1947-07-09 ·cited 7×
  The court denied petitions to reopen convictions, finding them devoid of substance and merit.
• United States v. Wernecke
  138 F.2d 561· 7th Cir.· 1943-11-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence obtained by search was admissible, and the prosecutor's comments were fair, affirming the conviction.
• Cannon v. United States
  116 U.S. 55· U.S.· 1885-12-14 ·cited 7×
  The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the territorial court, holding that the definition of "cohabit" under Section 3 of the Edmunds Act does not require sexual intercourse. The Court found that living in the same house with two women, eating at their respective tables a por
• United States v. Shirk
  981 F.2d 1382· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for structuring currency transactions and granted the government's cross-appeal, remanding for resentencing within the applicable guideline range.
• United States v. Holmes
  975 F.2d 275· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in its downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines and that the defendant's conviction should not be overturned due to discovery violations.
• United States v. Barksdale-Contreras
  972 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and various evidentiary and instructional challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Green
  964 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed Green's convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and money laundering, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting his challenges to the indictment.
• United States v. Scott
  884 F.2d 1163· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an appeal challenging the sufficiency of a dismissed indictment is moot after a guilty plea to a subsequent information, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction.
• United States v. Corpus
  882 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that no due process violation occurred regarding the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. McNEAL
  865 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment's use of 'deposits' instead of 'accounts' for a credit union was not fatal, the evidence of federal insurance was sufficient, the jury instruction linking counts was not plain error, and the refusal of a cautionary eyewitness instruction was not
• United States v. Peloquin
  810 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-18 ·cited 6×
  An indictment dismissed for non-compliance with the Speedy Trial Act is not considered "defective or insufficient" for the purpose of triggering the six-month savings clause under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.
• United States v. Am. Waste Fibers Co., Inc.
  809 F.2d 1044· 4th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 6×
  An indictment is not rendered invalid by referring to 'divers other persons' as co-conspirators rather than naming them, as long as it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charges and allows for a double jeopardy defense.
• United States v. Wren Worley
  751 F.2d 348· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the mailing of county warrants was part of the scheme to defraud, the evidence supported the Hobbs Act charge, and the evidence established a single conspiracy.
• United States v. Mathis
  673 F.2d 289· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the conviction on Count III, charging possession with intent to distribute a half-pound of cocaine, was valid as it represented the core of a single criminal transaction, and other counts were surplusage or improperly brought.
• United States v. Abdullah Shabazz
  657 F.2d 189· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 6×
  Claims previously decided on direct appeal are not relitigable in a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• United States v. Gallagher
  602 F.2d 1139· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on its interpretation of prior appellate rulings and its own assessment of evidence sufficiency, as the indictment was facially valid and the court could not re-evaluate matters already decided on appeal.
• United States v. Barton Hans Peterson
  592 F.2d 1035· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Adamo Wrecking Co.
  545 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of an EPA emission standard in a criminal enforcement proceeding, as exclusive review is vested in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
• United States v. Falcone
  544 F.2d 607· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for bankruptcy fraud and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Cacioppo
  517 F.2d 22· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated the essential facts constituting the offense, including intent, and that the jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
• United States v. Snell
  508 F.2d 21· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the admission of evidence was proper, and the statute did not violate due process.
• United States v. Pollard
  486 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-18 ·cited 6×
  An indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 is insufficient if it fails to allege that the acts were done with intent to defraud.
• United States v. Messina
  481 F.2d 878· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and a conviction can stand on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.
• United States v. Patterson
  477 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction should be affirmed because no prejudice resulted from the alleged variance in the indictment, and the forgery counts were sufficient.
• United States v. Rodriguez
  465 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the crime of uttering a forged check is not a continuing offense, and therefore, the jury instruction on that theory of venue was erroneous.
• United States v. Carey L. Coleman
  449 F.2d 772· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-30 ·cited 6×
  An indictment tracking the statutory language for theft of mail by a postal employee is sufficient even if it does not explicitly allege criminal intent, as the word 'steal' implies such intent.
• United States v. Crockett
  421 F.2d 649· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-06 ·cited 6×
  A prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) for selling unstamped heroin is permissible and does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The indictment was not fatally defective, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Gammill
  421 F.2d 185· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked the power to amend an indictment to include the year of the offense when the omission prevented the indictment from charging an offense within the statute of limitations.
• United States v. Panzavecchia
  421 F.2d 440· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an indictment with multiple verbatim counts, even if evidence shows separate offenses, is defective because it fails to clearly distinguish which count applies to which offense, imperiling the defendant's protection against double jeopardy.
• Sullivan v. United States
  411 F.2d 556· 10th Cir.· 1969-06-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the rebuttal evidence was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
• Montgomery Fly Cameron v. Hauck
  383 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the elements of the offense and that the Texas statutory scheme for theft by false pretext does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Mohler v. United States
  360 F.2d 915· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the information sufficiently charged offenses under the Dyer Act, and any potential error regarding multiplicious counts was harmless due to concurrent sentences.
• Cain v. United States
  349 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1965-08-31 ·cited 6×
  A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not available to attack a sentence that the prisoner has not yet commenced to serve.
• Davidson v. United States
  349 F.2d 530· 10th Cir.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's guilty pleas were not coerced and he was not denied his constitutional rights, including the right to counsel.
• Davis v. United States
  347 F.2d 378· 10th Cir.· 1965-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The indictment sufficiently alleged guilty knowledge as an essential element of the offense, despite not using the exact wording from a prior case.
• Strauss v. United States
  347 F.2d 691· 7th Cir.· 1965-06-16 ·cited 6×
  An indictment for mail fraud is not subject to collateral attack under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 if it sufficiently charges an offense under any reasonable construction. The indictment here adequately informed the petitioner of the charges.
• Alphonse Kanton v. United States
  345 F.2d 427· 7th Cir.· 1965-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment's language sufficiently charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), despite not explicitly naming the subsection, and thus the sentence imposed was legal.
• Bush v. United States
  338 F.2d 400· 9th Cir.· 1964-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an indictment for selling narcotics without a written order or from an unstamped package is not defective for failing to name the purchaser, as long as it otherwise sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charges.
• Underwood v. Bomar
  335 F.2d 783· 6th Cir.· 1964-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional rights were not violated regarding counsel, representation adequacy, indictment validity, or awareness of their guilty plea.
• Baiocchi v. United States
  333 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks, while improper, were not reversible error given the context, provocation by defense counsel, and the trial court's admonition to the jury. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1005, as
• Humphries v. United States
  310 F.2d 377· 8th Cir.· 1962-12-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, there was no fatal variance, no entrapment, and the co-defendant's guilty plea was properly handled.