Undue Prejudice

250 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Johnson v. State
  559 So. 2d 729· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-04-18 ·cited 24×
  Florida appellate court reversed Johnson's tampering with evidence conviction because trial testimony characterizing the arrest location as a high-crime, predominantly black neighborhood constituted impermissible guilt by association.
• Wayne Creasy Agency, Inc. v. Maillard
  604 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-08-11 ·cited 23×
  Wayne Creasy Agency appeals the trial court's grant of rescission for a condominium sale where buyers discovered structural defects two years after closing. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the seller leave to amend its answer
• United States v. Lokey
  945 F.2d 825· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and that the admission of evidence predating the indictment's timeframe was permissible.
• United States v. Chenault
  844 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that statements made by the defendant to FBI agents were admissible as they were not obtained in violation of Miranda rights or involuntarily, and that extrinsic evidence of selling pallets was admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. Clemons
  676 F.2d 122· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of a second drug transaction, including the defendant's statement, was admissible to prove identity and was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Mack
  643 F.2d 1119· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of a subsequent drug sale was admissible to rebut an entrapment defense, and prosecutorial remarks, while inappropriate, were harmless error.
• United States v. Wilson
  536 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 22×
• Lewis v. Kendrick
  944 F.2d 949· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 21×
  An unreasonably high fee demand by a plaintiff's attorney does not automatically forfeit the plaintiff's right to any fee award.
• Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. Terrell
  417 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the "false" portions of the Wyche letter as a basis for damages, as those issues had been settled in a prior libel suit, requiring a new trial against the Bureau. The court affirmed the judgment notwithsta
• Travers v. State
  578 So. 2d 793· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-18 ·cited 20×
  Robert Travers appeals his conviction for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault on a child under twelve, raising multiple trial errors including denial of a motion for acquittal, prosecutorial misconduct, trial court interference, and improper jury instructions. The appe
• United States v. Marroquin
  885 F.2d 1240· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the exclusions in section 3161(h) of the Speedy Trial Act do not apply to the thirty-day period in section 3161(c)(2), and that other claims regarding double jeopardy, jury instructions, evidence admissibility, and sufficiency of evidence were meritless.
• DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
  833 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without providing a justifying reason, as such denial is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Woodruff v. Lane
  818 F.2d 1369· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other home invasions for modus operandi, the sufficiency of the evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level of constitutional error denying a fair trial.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  810 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and possession of marijuana, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish a stateless vessel, territorial nexus, and conspiracy, and that separate punishments for two conspiracy counts did not violate double jeopardy.
• United States v. Hadi Zandi
  769 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellants' convictions for possession of opium with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence, and that their rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  668 F.2d 1199· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in applying the doctrine of laches to dismiss the EEOC's Title VII action due to unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant.
• Emilia L. Carr v. State
  156 So. 3d 1052· Fla.· 2015-02-05 ·cited 19×
  Emilia Carr was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for her role in the premeditated killing of Heather Strong. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction and death sentence, rejecting numerous challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings, treatm
• Kates v. State
  41 So. 3d 1044· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-08-10 ·cited 19×
  Phillip Kates appealed his convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude, resisting an officer without violence, and possession of cannabis. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in admitting detailed testimony abou
• Donnie Lee Donaldson v. State
  656 So. 2d 580· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-06-19 ·cited 19×
  Donnie Lee Donaldson was convicted of cocaine sale within 1000 feet of a school, but the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by excluding critical defense witness testimony without exploring reasonable alternatives to miti
• Johnson v. State
  842 So. 2d 228· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-04-08 ·cited 18×
  Trial courts must accept a defendant's stipulation to his status as a sexual offender to limit prejudice, but are not precluded from instructing the jury on the proper legal elements of the crime, which necessarily include the term "sexual offender" as statutorily defined, rather
• United States v. Lail
  846 F.2d 1299· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of an extrinsic bank robbery was improperly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) because the dissimilarities between the crimes did not establish a modus operandi for identity purposes. The error was not harmless.
• United States v. Williams
  816 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered alibi evidence and in admitting extrinsic evidence of similar acts (rapes) to prove intent.
• Hannah v. City OF Overland
  795 F.2d 1385· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding alibi evidence, deposition testimony, or denying leave to amend, and that any error in admitting prior convictions was harmless.
• Garcia v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  657 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Johnson
  634 F.2d 735· 4th Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court should grant a new trial due to the admission of inadmissible hearsay evidence.
• Garfield Jones v. State
  32 So. 3d 706· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-04-07 ·cited 17×
  Garfield Jones was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and armed robbery after a jury trial. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing regarding a discove
• United States v. Wyatt
  762 F.2d 908· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that evidence of a prior drug offense, even if based on a nolo contendere plea, is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove intent, provided it is relevant and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice. Objections not raised at trial are
• United States v. Williams
  900 F.2d 823· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence of prior similar mailings is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge and intent, provided it passes the Beechum test and is accompanied by proper jury instructions.
• United States v. Mazzanti
  888 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
• Theriot v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  742 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the jury's finding of negligence but remanded for recalculation of damages based on current precedent.
• United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, Inc.
  741 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, evidence admission, or sufficiency of evidence, and that the defendant's arguments for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or Brady violations were without merit.
• United States v. Hilton Robinson
  687 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the statutory minimum value of the stolen goods and that the admission of evidence of other crimes and the judge's conduct did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Krezdorn
  639 F.2d 1327· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The admission of thirty-two additional forgeries not charged in the indictment, offered to show a plan or scheme, constituted reversible error because they did not establish a larger goal and merely demonstrated propensity, thus violating Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• United States v. Turner
  565 F.2d 539· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's voluntary statement to an agent was admissible and that the trial court did not err in admitting it.
• Rath v. State
  627 So. 2d 24· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-10-22 ·cited 14×
  David Rath appeals his DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide convictions, contending the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation without first conducting a Richardson inquiry into the state's discovery violation. The appellate court agreed, f
• Seabron Sherrod v. State
  582 So. 2d 814· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The trial court abused its discretion in denying motions for mistrial based on improper comments about the location of arrest being a high crime area.
• Amendola v. Bayer
  907 F.2d 760· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on claims of breach of oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty, nor in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• United States v. Mergist
  738 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of accomplice testimony was harmless error, and the admission of extrinsic offense evidence was proper in a conspiracy case where intent remained a material issue.
• Citizens & Landowners Against THE Miles City/NEW Underwood Powerline v. Sec'y, United States Dep't OF Energy
  683 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the landowners' claims were barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and prejudice, and that the federal agency was not required to obtain a state permit for the powerline construction under the Supremacy Clause.
• Smith v. State
  126 So. 3d 1038· Fla.· 2013-09-12 ·cited 13×
  Stephen Smith, convicted and sentenced to death for murdering correctional officer Darla Lathrem during a 2003 prison escape attempt, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under Florida's postconviction relief rule and filed a habeas petition. The Florida Supre
• Adkins v. State
  605 So. 2d 915· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-09-11 ·cited 13×
  Wayne Adkins was convicted of four counts of sexual battery on his stepson and appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting testimony from two other child victims regarding similar sexual abuse. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in familial sexual
• Stokes v. State
  914 So. 2d 514· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-11-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence of the defendant's gang membership, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Lattimore
  902 F.2d 902· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the husband's loan payment was proper, the denial of a mistrial for a sequestration rule violation was not an abuse of discretion, and the evidence was sufficient to convict.
• United States v. Hasna Sayed Dahdah
  864 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court erred in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's redirect examination, this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Gambize Schardar
  850 F.2d 1457· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for wire fraud, making and uttering false bills of lading, and interstate transportation of property taken by fraud were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying
• United GAS Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  824 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction to approve exculpatory tariffs for direct sales customers as part of curtailment plans, and that the Commission's articulated standard of liability (negligence, bad faith, fault, or willful misconduct)
• United States v. Whiteside
  810 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of government exhibits and the denial of a continuance were not erroneous, and the jury instructions on willfulness were proper.
• United States ex rel. Leroy Hairston v. Warden, Ill. State Penitentiary, Stateville Corr. Ctr.
  597 F.2d 604· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state trial court's pre-trial statement that alibi evidence would be excluded if the notice statute was not complied with, effectively denied the defendant his right to present an alibi defense, thus violating due process under Wardius v. Oregon.
• Thompson-El v. Jones
  876 F.2d 66· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant leave to file a second amended complaint, as the motion was untimely and would have caused undue delay and prejudice.
• Dannebrog Rederi AS v. M/Y True Dream
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court denied Underwriters' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add Rule B allegations, finding that granting the amendment would unduly prejudice Ashlar and potential buyers.