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. Fried
  576 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause and that post-arrest statements were admissible as non-hearsay. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. McCLINTIC
  570 F.2d 685· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, joinder of offenses was proper, lay witness testimony was admissible, cross-examination regarding prior misconduct was permissible, and the denial of a new trial motion based on undisclosed plea bargain terms was not an abuse
• United States v. Serlin
  538 F.2d 737· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single scheme to defraud under the mail fraud statute, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court were not erroneous.
• The United States v. Camacho
  528 F.2d 464· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3) prohibits licensed dealers from selling firearms to aliens who do not reside in the state where the business is located, and that sufficient evidence supported convictions for conspiracy and aiding and abetting illegal firearms sales.
• United States v. Bryan
  483 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 46×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that a defendant convicted as an aider and abettor cannot be convicted if the named principal in the indictment has been acquitted of the substantive offense.
• United States v. Knight
  451 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal search and seizure, the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted documents and gave jury instructions.
• United States v. Wilshire OIL Co. OF Tex.
  427 F.2d 969· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the double jeopardy claim was without merit. The court also found no reversible error in the handling of newspaper publicity or the imposed fine.
• United States v. Grayson
  416 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was not violated, the grand jury had territorial jurisdiction, the indictment stated an offense, and the defendant's constitutional rights were not infringed.
• Oertle v. United States
  370 F.2d 719· 10th Cir.· 1966-11-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, its handling of the Jencks Act material, or its exclusion of certain evidence, and that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the jury's verdicts.
• Colella v. United States
  360 F.2d 792· 1st Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was valid, evidence was properly handled, and jury instructions were adequate, despite minor errors, leading to an affirmance of the conviction.
• Jackson v. United States
  325 F.2d 477· 8th Cir.· 1963-12-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment was not subject to collateral attack via a § 2255 motion and that the sentence imposed was within the statutory maximum.
• Anderson v. United States
  215 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1954-08-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently stated an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, was not unconstitutionally vague, and adequately apprised the defendants of the charges against them.
• Klein v. United States
  204 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-18 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, when denied without a hearing, must be based on the files and records of the case, and issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are not grounds for such a motion.
• Williams v. United States
  179 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1950-01-10 ·cited 46×·via Indictment Specificity
  The dissenting judge believes the conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 241) is constitutional and sufficiently definite, and the indictment was valid, thus the conviction should be affirmed.
• United States v. Krepper
  159 F.2d 958· 3d Cir.· 1946-12-11 ·cited 46×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the defendant's conviction was proper, as the evidence supported the charges and the statutory interpretations were correct.
• Barber v. State
  52 Fla. 5· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 46×
  Joseph Barber was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder for shooting Thomas Hughey in the leg. On appeal, Barber challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the indictment substantially complied wit
• United States v. Mayo
  705 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the defendants were not entitled to an entrapment defense because the government presented substantial evidence of their predisposition to commit the crimes, and they failed to offer sufficient contradictory evidence. Furthermore, one defendant's denial of inv
• Morrison v. United States
  365 F.2d 521· D.C. Cir.· 1966-07-13 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the indictment was proper, the uncorroborated testimony of a narcotics agent was sufficient for conviction, and the delays did not violate due process. Furthermore, the government was not obligated to grant immunity to a codefendant who invoked his Fifth Amend
• Wilburn Shiver v. State
  41 Fla. 630· Fla.· 1899-06-01 ·cited 45×
  Wilburn Shiver was convicted of fraudulently altering animal marks and brands in violation of Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting multiple challenges to the indictment's form, jury composition, continuance denial, venue change denial, and jur
• Sherman v. State
  17 Fla. 888· Fla.· 1880-06-01 ·cited 45×
  William Sherman was convicted of assault with intent to murder based on testimony that he participated in an affray and cut the victim. Sherman appealed on multiple grounds, including challenges to jury instructions, the sufficiency of the indictment, and the verdict itself. The
• United States v. Croft
  750 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while the judge personally doubts the interpretation, precedent dictates affirming the conviction based on the statute's application to conversion of services.
• United States v. McCLURE
  734 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, discovery, or a specific jury instruction, and that the indictment was sufficient.
• United States v. Janoe
  720 F.2d 1156· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the voluntariness of the defendant's confession as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a).
• United States v. Trotta
  525 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 44×
  An indictment for extortion under the Hobbs Act, alleging a public official obtained payments under color of official right, is sufficient if it tracks the statutory language and provides specific details of the offense, without needing to allege a specific quid pro quo.
• United States v. Constant
  501 F.2d 1284· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the prosecutor's improper impeachment attempt was harmless error, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mail fraud.
• United States v. DePUGH
  452 F.2d 915· 10th Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 44×
  The denial of advisory counsel was not an abuse of discretion, as the defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel and received a fair trial.
• DePUGH v. United States
  393 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-15 ·cited 44×
  A federal conviction for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce while under indictment for a felony is not invalidated by the subsequent quashing of the underlying state indictment.
• United States v. Ciongoli
  358 F.2d 439· 3d Cir.· 1966-03-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment should not have been dismissed because the defendant could be convicted of a lesser included offense, and the issue of market value for blank money orders was a question of proof for trial.
• Lewis v. United States
  340 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment counts were sufficient and that any Jencks Act violation was harmless error due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
• Stein v. United States
  313 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 44×
  A conspiracy count in an indictment is not void for want of an allegation of an essential element of the substantive offense if the elements are alleged or necessarily implied, and the indictment is sufficient under modern pleading rules.
• Lott v. United States
  309 F.2d 115· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the delay in sentencing did not violate due process, and the court did not lose jurisdiction by considering trial evidence after nolo contendere pleas.
• State v. Bruno
  107 So. 2d 9· Fla.· 1958-12-06 ·cited 44×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order quashing an information against Louis Bruno, a municipal official charged with grand larceny. The Court held that Florida Statute Section 932.06, which extended the statute of limitations for crimes committed by officials
• Duke v. United States
  233 F.2d 897· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict most defendants of conspiracy but insufficient to convict Sheriff Fiveash, who was only shown to have engaged in ensnarement.
• Lott v. United States
  218 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-20 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and in allowing prejudicial testimony, requiring a new trial for most defendants. It also held that the trial court improperly dismissed an appeal.
• Harper v. United States
  143 F.2d 795· 8th Cir.· 1944-06-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for continuance, overruling the demurrers to the indictment, or admitting evidence, as the indictment was sufficient and the evidence was relevant to intent and the scheme.
• United States v. Johnson
  123 F.2d 111· 7th Cir.· 1941-09-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the indictment was not demurrable due to duplicity or improper grand jury term extensions, as the alleged crimes stemmed from a single, continuing scheme and the grand jury acted within its statutory authority.
• Wiley Charles v. State
  36 Fla. 691· Fla.· 1895-06-01 ·cited 44×
  Wiley Charles was convicted of breaking and entering a stable at night with intent to commit larceny of a mule. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Charles's good faith belief in ownership must be that
• United States v. Alvarez-Moreno
  874 F.2d 1402· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 43×
  The court held that while an indictment must provide notice of specific acts for a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) conviction, the defendant's actual notice of the acts used to prove the continuing series element satisfied due process.
• United States v. Hooker
  841 F.2d 1225· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the indictment's citation of the RICO statute sufficiently alleged the interstate commerce element, and any deficiency was harmless error given the defendant's fair trial and lack of prejudice.
• United States v. King
  587 F.2d 956· 9th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective for failing to charge lack of authorization, and the defendant failed to meet his burden of production for the medical exception.
• United States ex rel. McCANN v. Thompson
  144 F.2d 604· 2d Cir.· 1944-07-19 ·cited 43×·via Indictment Validity
  The court held that the relator's objections regarding grand jury composition and juror absences were procedurally barred and lacked merit.
• Davis v. State
  51 Fla. 37· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed Elijah Davis's burglary conviction, holding that an indictment charging burglary must explicitly allege the ownership of the building entered, not merely describe it. The court found the indictment fatally defective for failing to state that B.
• United States v. Wilfried van Cauwenberghe
  814 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-10 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the appellant was properly extradited based on the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision and that the indictment, trial, and sentencing were not erroneous.
• United States v. Horton
  676 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the superseding indictment was sufficient, the denial of a continuance did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, the jury instructions were proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the imposition of two sentences for two victims was corr
• United States v. Scallion
  533 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that hotel casino records and telephone call records were properly admitted into evidence under the Business Records Act, as they were not hearsay and were relevant to the defendant's conduct.
• United States v. Pomponio
  517 F.2d 460· 4th Cir.· 1975-06-03 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to inquire of the jury whether they had been exposed to prejudicial newspaper publicity during the trial, requiring a new trial. The court also found count 5 of the indictment to be fatally defective.
• United States v. Burton
  475 F.2d 469· 8th Cir.· 1973-03-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the search was private and not governmental, and that the indictment was sufficient and supported by evidence.
• Kaneshiro v. United States
  445 F.2d 1266· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the indictment was not fatally defective, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the appellants were dealers, and the trial court did not err in admitting certain statements or refusing requested instructions.
• United States v. Wilson
  434 F.2d 494· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-11 ·cited 42×·via Indictment Requirements
  The court held that the defendants' challenges to the indictment and their claims of prejudice from joint trials were without merit, affirming their convictions.
• Crow v. United States
  397 F.2d 284· 10th Cir.· 1968-07-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a threat to prosecute another person, if unrefuted, may coerce a guilty plea and requires a hearing to determine voluntariness.