Sufficiency Of Indictment

1,362 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 155 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Galloway
  976 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 52×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) is authorized by statute and does not violate constitutional rights, allowing consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing.
• United States v. Paiz
  905 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy, knowing participation, and applying the Pinkerton doctrine. It also upheld the use of the 'ostrich' jury instruction and rejected double jeopardy claims.
• United States v. Givens
  767 F.2d 574· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant's prior convictions were admissible for impeachment, the eyewitness identification was not tainted, the rebuttal evidence was properly admitted, the indictment was sufficient, and polygraph evidence was not required at sentencing.
• United States v. Cecil
  608 F.2d 1294· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-27 ·cited 52×
  An indictment must contain sufficient factual particularity to inform the defendant of the specific charges and enable preparation of a defense, and a bill of particulars or open file discovery cannot cure a fatally defective indictment.
• United States v. Tokoph
  514 F.2d 597· 10th Cir.· 1975-04-24 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting violations of 18 U.S.C. § 215 and § 656, and for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014 and conspiracy, was supported by sufficient evidence and that the indictment was legally sufficient.
• Hubsch v. United States
  256 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that using an alias to pass a forged check can constitute forgery, but the specific facts of reliance on the assumed identity are crucial for conviction.
• Meyers v. United States
  171 F.2d 800· D.C. Cir.· 1948-11-08 ·cited 52×·via Indictment Specificity
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of suborning perjury on three counts, finding that the alleged perjured statements were indeed made, were false, and were suborned by the appellant.
• Brown v. State
  135 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1938-11-15 ·cited 52×
  Tommie Lee Brown was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing of Fred Holland. On appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Brown challenged the indictment, the admissibility of his confession, and alleged juror bias. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictme
• United States v. Chilcote
  724 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 51×
  The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the sufficiency of the indictment.
• United States v. Silas Jones
  642 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy and violating the Travel Act, and that the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, were adequate and any procedural error was harmless.
• United States v. Jackson
  576 F.2d 46· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 51×
  A physician can be prosecuted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for dispensing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice, and the indictment need not explicitly state this if it alleges dispensing under the guise of a clinic. The court also found no abuse
• Lyman Moody Bennett v. United States
  285 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1960-12-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the appellant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the indictment, scienter, duplicity, judicial comments, prosecutorial remarks, and judicial disqualification were without merit.
• Anderson Mitchell v. State
  157 Fla. 121· Fla.· 1946-03-01 ·cited 51×
  Anderson Mitchell was indicted for murder in the first degree more than two years after the alleged killing, which would normally violate the statute of limitations. The Florida Supreme Court held that the last paragraph of Section 932.05—which allowed conviction of lesser homici
• Norris v. United States
  152 F.2d 808· 5th Cir.· 1946-01-15 ·cited 51×
  The court held that an indictment for robbery using the statutory language is sufficient even if it omits explicit allegations of violence or fear, provided the defendants were otherwise informed of the charge and their substantial rights were not prejudiced.
• United States v. Lowe
  860 F.2d 1370· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment. The court also affirmed that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is a sentence-enhancement provision, not a substantive offense.
• United States v. Watkins
  709 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective for omitting the word 'knowingly' and that the jury instruction on value was proper.
• United States v. Welliver
  601 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-23 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment for 'willful misapplication' was sufficient, that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges, but that the jury instruction equating 'reckless disregard' with 'intent to injure or defraud' was erroneous for the false entry charge under
• United States v. Thevis
  484 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 50×
  The court held that magazines must be tested under both the Miller and Memoirs obscenity standards, with defendants receiving the benefit of the more favorable standard. The statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 1462, as judicially construed, satisfies the Miller standard's specificity requireme
• United States v. Robinson
  475 F.2d 376· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow voir dire questions about self-defense, that the jury instructions on aiding and abetting and flight were adequate, and that the robbery indictment, while imperfect, was sufficient given the jury instructions.
• United States v. Mason
  440 F.2d 1293· 10th Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying pretrial motions, and the photographic identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive.
• Yates v. United States
  404 F.2d 462· 1st Cir.· 1968-12-13 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
• Gevinson v. United States
  358 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for willfully and knowingly causing false statements to be made to the FHA to influence its action, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on the indictment, jury charge, or discovery.
• Collins v. Markley
  346 F.2d 230· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-11 ·cited 50×
• Smith v. United States
  305 F.2d 197· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence regarding tax return disclosures, nor did it err in its instructions to the jury or in its handling of the trial proceedings. The court also found the indictme
• Davenport v. United States
  260 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1958-10-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy.
• Byrd v. State
  80 So. 2d 694· Fla.· 1955-04-29 ·cited 50×
  Travis Byrd was convicted of transporting untaxed whiskey, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the sheriff stopped his truck based solely on a tip that it contained moonshine whiskey, without probable cause or a search warrant, violating Byrd's constitutional right to
• Stillman v. United States
  177 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-27 ·cited 50×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that a typographical error in an indictment's caption does not vitiate it, and that references to the Emergency Price Control Act, as amended, and its regulations were sufficient to inform defendants of the charges, even if the indictment omitted the words 'As amen
• Ochoa v. United States
  167 F.2d 341· 9th Cir.· 1948-04-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial judge's questioning of the psychiatric witness was not prejudicial error, the prosecutor's closing argument was proper, the jury instructions regarding capital punishment were adequate, and the indictment was sufficient.
• Sutton v. United States
  157 F.2d 661· 5th Cir.· 1946-08-28 ·cited 50×
  An information charging possession of rationed sugar in violation of specific orders is insufficient if it fails to allege facts constituting an offense and instead relies on a legal conclusion, thus violating the Sixth Amendment's requirement for clear accusation.
• King v. State
  43 Fla. 211· Fla.· 1901-01-01 ·cited 50×
  Edgar H. King was convicted of forgery for allegedly falsely making and counterfeiting a lease document. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding that certain testimony concerning King's knowledge and intent should have been admitted, and that the jury instructi
• Geo. W. L. Denham v. State
  22 Fla. 664· Fla.· 1886-06-01 ·cited 50×
  Denham was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after being accused of fatally shooting Peter B. Tillis. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial, finding that the indictment fatally failed to allege premeditation in statutory language, which i
• United States v. Normandeau
  800 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 49×
  The court held that knowledge of the quantity of marijuana is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and that a warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible if supported by probable cause.
• United States v. Daily
  921 F.2d 994· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the refusal of a requested jury instruction on character evidence, despite the defendants' acquittal on most charges and conviction on conspiracy, constituted plain error affecting substantial rights to a fair trial.
• United States v. Trollinger
  415 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the exclusion of character evidence was proper, the jury charge was adequate, and the admission of statements complied with Miranda.
• Kienlen v. United States
  379 F.2d 20· 10th Cir.· 1967-05-25 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the appellant's guilty plea was voluntarily and understandably entered, and that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw the plea, though it left the door open for further proceedings on reliance.
• Davis v. United States
  357 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-03 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Count III of the indictment was unconstitutionally vague and that the trial judge's comments violated the defendants' Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
• Huff v. United States
  301 F.2d 760· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-19 ·cited 48×
• Coleman v. United States
  295 F.2d 555· D.C. Cir.· 1961-09-08 ·cited 48×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the jury should have been instructed on second-degree murder as a lesser included offense because there was evidence that the robbery had terminated before the homicide occurred.
• United States v. Johns
  734 F.2d 657· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's argument regarding the absence of an alibi witness was improper, it did not constitute plain error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Indorato
  628 F.2d 711· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by statements made under threat of dismissal, that his perjury testimony was material, and that the indictment and trial were conducted properly.
• United States v. Sullivan
  578 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 47×·via Indictment Validity
• Standard OIL Co. OF Tex. & Pasotex Pipe Line Co. v. United States
  307 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-15 ·cited 47×
  A corporation cannot be held criminally liable for the acts of unfaithful employees who act outside the scope of their employment and without intent to benefit the corporation, even if those acts involve violating a statute.
• Skipper v. State
  114 Fla. 312· Fla.· 1934-03-21 ·cited 47×
  C. A. Skipper was convicted of embezzling $15,000 from the Highlands County Bank while employed as an agent. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the indictment, the trial judge's impartiality, and the sufficiency of evidence.
• Ward v. State
  83 Fla. 311· Fla.· 1922-02-23 ·cited 47×
  George Ward was convicted of perjury for allegedly giving false testimony in a larceny trial that he had been offered a bribe. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was sufficiently specific and the evidence met the two-witness corroborati
• Holton v. State
  28 Fla. 303· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 47×
  Frank Holton was convicted under an 1887 Florida statute of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under seventeen years old. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and two-year sentence, holding that the statute's language sufficiently charged the offense
• United States v. Rivera
  879 F.2d 1247· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment was not defective, the government did not breach the plea bargain, and the district court's sentencing departure was reasonable despite a harmless error in offense level calculation.
• United States v. Jackson
  824 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 46×·via Indictment Requirements
  The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is a sentence enhancement provision, not a separate offense, and thus prior convictions need not be alleged in the indictment to apply its enhanced penalties. Furthermore, the defendant waived his sufficiency of evidence claim by failing to mo
• United States v. Pringle
  751 F.2d 419· 1st Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the Coast Guard's stop, boarding, search, and seizure of the Nirvana were lawful under statutory authority, the Fourth Amendment, and international law, and that the Classified Information Procedures Act and Speedy Trial Act were not violated.
• United States v. Behrens
  689 F.2d 154· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to distribute narcotics were valid, affirming the trial court's decisions regarding evidence, indictment, severance, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Outler
  659 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 46×
  An indictment charging a physician with dispensing controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) must allege that the prescription lacked a legitimate medical reason, as this is an essential element of the offense.