Sufficiency Of Indictment

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

• State v. Ingleton
  653 So. 2d 443· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The State seeks certiorari review of a trial court order precluding it from prosecuting the defendant for first-degree murder based on a drug overdose theory, arguing the indictment for premeditated murder by strangulation was sufficient.
• United States v. Gunning
  984 F.2d 1476· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy and firearm convictions, and that Angela's sentencing enhancements were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Reyes
  979 F.2d 1406· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the defendant negotiated for the sale of an additional pound of cocaine was clearly erroneous, as the evidence did not support an agreement or negotiation.
• United States v. Polan
  970 F.2d 1280· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment's substantive counts were not defective, the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss jurors for cause, the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the court did not err in refusing to disclose psychiatric records, and the jury instruction on r
• United States v. Green
  962 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the government's interference with defense counsel did not violate the Sixth Amendment, the evidence was not unlawfully seized, the jury instructions were proper, and the supplemental instruction was not coercive. However, the co
• United States v. Lorin G. Sloan
  939 F.2d 499· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was legally sufficient and that the defendant's arguments regarding the illegality of income tax and his status were frivolous and previously rejected by federal courts.
• United States v. Belcher
  927 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged a crime because the December 1985 version of Form 4789 clearly required financial institutions to disclose the real party in interest in reportable transactions, and the defendant's intentional concealment of this informatio
• United States v. James
  923 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to prove the bonds were stolen, the jury instructions were proper, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Williams
  923 F.2d 76· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the indictment, jury instructions, severance denial, or Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Fogel
  901 F.2d 23· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the conviction for converting government property. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant's attorney to testify.
• United States v. Hernandez
  891 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient despite omitting "and in relation to" and that the prosecutor's arguments, while containing some improper statements, did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence.
• United States v. Zangger
  848 F.2d 923· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege that the mailed matter was obscene, an essential element of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1461.
• United States v. Lennon
  814 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the National Stolen Property Act applies even when fraudulently obtained funds are commingled with legitimate funds in an interstate check, as long as the fraudulently obtained portion meets the statutory value threshold.
• Mira v. Marshall
  806 F.2d 636· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate constitutional violations regarding de novo review, appointment of counsel, jury instructions, indictment sufficiency, evidence sufficie
• United States v. Morlan
  756 F.2d 1442· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was not unconstitutionally vague and that the exclusion of evidence of the accomplice's prior violent acts was not an abuse of discretion. However, concurrent sentences for assault and placing life in jeopardy during a single robbery were improp
• United States v. Giles
  756 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was not impermissibly vague as to time and place, and thus was sufficient.
• United States v. Previti
  644 F.2d 318· 4th Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 656 by alleging willful misapplication of bank funds, complying with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.
• United States v. Riley Ray Fultz
  602 F.2d 830· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and any errors in testimony or law enforcement conduct did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Flood
  586 F.2d 391· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions for a continuance, and the indictment was sufficient.
• United States v. Am. Serv. Corp.
  580 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged the nexus with interstate commerce required for federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, making the nolo contendere pleas valid.
• United States v. Wagstaff
  572 F.2d 270· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The dismissal of an indictment for failing to cite the specific statute violated, when the indictment otherwise sufficiently apprised the defendant of the charges, does not place the defendant in jeopardy, and the government may appeal.
• Hardwick v. State
  335 So. 2d 307· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed a conviction for first-degree murder and robbery. The court held that the indictment was sufficient to charge first-degree felony murder and that the robbery conviction did not merge with the murder conviction as they were separate and distinct crimes
• United States v. Trevithick
  526 F.2d 838· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-05 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's claims of speedy trial violation, judicial bias, improper venue, insufficient evidence, or defective indictment.
• United States v. Selwyn Vanderpool
  528 F.2d 1205· 4th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an indictment's introductory sections can incorporate scheme details by reference into specific counts, and that a post-payment congratulatory letter can be an integral part of a mail fraud scheme.
• United States v. Marrifield
  496 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for operating an illegal gambling business under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 were valid, as the statute's jurisdictional requirement of five or more persons involved in conducting the business was met by interpreting 'conducts' broadly to incl
• United States v. Newsom
  493 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the jury conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficient, and various alleged errors during the trial did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Trevino
  491 F.2d 74· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment failed to state an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1709 because it charged the stealing of a letter, which is not an offense under the statute, rather than the stealing of an article contained within a letter.
• United States v. Kimball
  441 F.2d 505· 10th Cir.· 1971-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported a conviction for embezzling funds arising from interstate commerce.
• Bankston v. United States
  433 F.2d 1294· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the conviction and sentence without an evidentiary hearing.
• United States v. Phillips
  423 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for failing to remain in assigned civilian work was supported by sufficient evidence, and the indictment was adequate.
• DeMARO v. Willingham
  401 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1968-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that issues previously considered on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
• Bradley v. State
  208 So. 2d 140· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an information charging perjury is invalid if not based on a valid indictment or sworn testimony, and the indictment must allege the defendant was under oath.
• State v. Cossack
  205 So. 2d 344· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-12-15 ·cited 4×
  Florida appealed the quashing of an indictment charging two men with assault with intent to commit rape. The appellate court held that the indictment sufficiently apprised the defendants of the charges and was not unconstitutionally vague, reversing the lower court's order.
• United States ex rel. Albert Mintzer v. Dros
  403 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the writ of habeas corpus as the appellant's claims did not raise constitutional questions or were not cognizable in habeas corpus.
• Barkan v. United States
  362 F.2d 158· 7th Cir.· 1966-06-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence without a hearing, and that the judge was not required to recuse himself.
• United States v. Gilchrist
  347 F.2d 715· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's claims regarding unlawful arrest, lack of preliminary hearing, and insufficient indictment were without merit.
• United States v. DeWELLES
  345 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1965-03-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the arrest and search were lawful, affirming the conviction.
• Sanchez v. United States
  341 F.2d 379· 1st Cir.· 1965-02-10 ·cited 4×
  An indictment for unlawful transfer of narcotics or drugs is not fatally defective for failing to name the transferee, as the transferee's name is not an element of the offense.
• United States v. Lamar
  337 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1964-10-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was not constitutionally defective for failing to name the purchasers, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts.
• United States v. Rutherford
  332 F.2d 444· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute criminalizing the imparting of false information about an attempt to commit a crime is constitutional as applied to the defendant's false bomb report, and the indictment was not defective.
• Dendy v. United States
  290 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and no error occurred during trial or sentencing.
• Radford v. United States
  290 F.2d 9· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged tax evasion by alleging a false statement of adjusted gross income and tax due, and that evidence of prior years' failures to file was admissible.
• Helms v. Beryle C. Sacks
  278 F.2d 687· 6th Cir.· 1960-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims did not present probable cause for a constitutional violation, and therefore, a certificate of probable cause would not be issued.
• Raphael Killebrew v. United States
  275 F.2d 308· 5th Cir.· 1960-02-26 ·cited 4×
  A motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is a collateral attack and cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment unless it is void or fails to state an offense.
• United States v. Hood
  274 F.2d 874· 7th Cir.· 1960-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the indictment's sufficiency for appeal by raising it for the first time after the trial court lost jurisdiction.
• United States v. Moritz Broker
  246 F.2d 328· 2d Cir.· 1957-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to depose a coconspirator and that the indictment was sufficiently pleaded.
• Lionel Sampson Faibisy alias John W. Gedney v. United States
  221 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the jury instructions were adequate, affirming the conviction.
• Coppola v. United States
  217 F.2d 155· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient despite a misspelling and that the evidence supported the convictions.
• Schneider v. United States
  192 F.2d 498· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction erroneously included criminal negligence as an element of bribery, which was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Weldon v. United States
  183 F.2d 832· D.C. Cir.· 1950-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an indictment framed under one section of a statute but tried and convicted under another is not grounds for reversal if the defendant was not misled to his prejudice. The court also found the indictment sufficient under the statute and constitutional provisio