Unfair Prejudice

888 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 386 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Touloumis
  771 F.2d 235· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its jury instructions.
• Crawford v. Edmonson
  764 F.2d 479· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the deceaseds' prior misconduct and the testimony of a robbery victim, nor did it err in denying a motion for a directed verdict on liability for the shooting of one of the deceaseds.
• United States v. Royal Stafford Terry
  760 F.2d 939· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of armed bank robbery and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence.
• United States v. Mergist
  738 F.2d 645· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-26 ·cited 14×·via Undue Prejudice
  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.
• United States v. O'Leary
  739 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about prior drug transactions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was relevant for permissible purposes and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudic
• 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×·via Undue Prejudice
  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.
• United States v. Tisdale
  647 F.2d 91· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the admission of evidence concerning marijuana transactions was prejudicial error under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Love
  692 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or denying severance.
• United States v. Hernandez
  588 F.2d 346· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's financial difficulties, but that the special parole condition prohibiting the defendant from returning to the United States was beyond the court's authority.
• United States v. Frankenthal
  582 F.2d 1102· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that evidence of a defense witness's ex parte meeting with the judge, which tended to show bias and interest in the litigation's outcome, was admissible for impeachment purposes, and its probative value was not unfairly outweighed by prejudice.
• State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Dina Figueroa
  218 So. 3d 886· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-02-08 ·cited 13×
  State Farm appealed a judgment for an insured in a hurricane damage claim, arguing the insured failed to timely comply with post-loss policy obligations and that evidence of the insured's health was irrelevant and prejudicial. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment and
• Davis v. State
  207 So. 3d 177· Fla.· 2016-11-10 ·cited 13×
  Leon Davis Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the December 2007 murders of Dashrath and Pravinkumar Patel during an attempted armed robbery at a BP gas station in Polk County. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and de
• 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
• Kino Bartholomew v. State
  101 So. 3d 888· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-10-31 ·cited 13×
  Kino Bartholomew appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and related offenses. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses because the trial court reversibly erred in admitting a repudiated taped statement of a State witness as past recollection recorded without proper f
• Harden v. State
  87 So. 3d 1243· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-23 ·cited 13×
  Appellant Harden was convicted of sexual battery, false imprisonment, and domestic battery against his former girlfriend. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior dome
• Ballard v. State
  66 So. 3d 912· Fla.· 2011-06-30 ·cited 13×
  Roy Phillip Ballard was convicted of first-degree murder in the disappearance of Autumn Traub, his stepdaughter, whom he allegedly killed to regain custody of her daughter Suny so he could continue a sexual relationship with her. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction
• Olsten Health Servs., Inc. v. Edmond Cody
  979 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-04-30 ·cited 13×
  Olsten Health Services appealed a jury verdict finding it negligent in the care of paraplegic patient Edmond Cody, who developed a severe Stage 4 pressure ulcer that required years of treatment and never fully healed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting Gentiva's
• Shively v. State
  752 So. 2d 84· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-02-25 ·cited 13×
  Mark Shively was convicted of sexual battery on a child and appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting testimony about him kissing the victim and being seen naked with her. The appellate court affirmed, holding that evidence describing how the crime came to light and th
• Usher v. State
  642 So. 2d 29· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-08-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements made by a third party after the appellant was no longer present and that these statements were not admissible under the coconspirator exception.
• Adkins v. State
  605 So. 2d 915· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-09-11 ·cited 13×·via Undue Prejudice
  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
• Anderson v. State
  549 So. 2d 807· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-10-05 ·cited 13×
  Anderson appealed his convictions for sexual battery of his stepdaughter, arguing that improper collateral crime evidence (Williams Rule evidence) regarding abuse of his sister and prostitution of the victim should result in reversal. The appellate court affirmed three conviction
• Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.
  853 F.2d 1130· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence of racial slurs was improper, it did not affect the substantial rights of the parties given the overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff's physical unsuitability for the job.
• United States v. Guerrero
  803 F.2d 783· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the defendant's threats to a witness, as the evidence was not hearsay and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect under Rule 403.
• Delmer Smith v. State
  170 So. 3d 745· Fla.· 2015-07-09 ·cited 12×·via Prejudicial Impact
  Delmer Smith was convicted of first-degree murder during a home invasion and robbery, resulting in the brutal beating death of Kathleen Briles with an antique sewing machine. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed both his conviction and death sentence on direct appeal, finding suffi
• Johnson v. State
  47 So. 3d 941· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-11-17 ·cited 12×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding prior sworn testimony that is relevant to a material issue in dispute when the opposing party had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness, unless the objecting party demonstrates that the probative value is substantially ou
• Green v. State
  27 So. 3d 731· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-02-10 ·cited 12×
  Jeffrey Green was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery in connection with a shooting death during a robbery. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor improperly commen
• Stokes v. State
  914 So. 2d 514· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-11-23 ·cited 12×·via Undue Prejudice
  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.
• Gerber v. Ramanuja Iyengar, M.D.
  725 So. 2d 1181· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-12-23 ·cited 12×
  Ralph Gerber suffered a stroke during cardiac catheterization performed by Dr. Iyengar and sued for medical malpractice. The trial court excluded evidence of Dr. Iyengar's prior practice, admitted hearsay testimony, and prevented rebuttal evidence, resulting in a verdict for the
• Farrell v. State
  682 So. 2d 204· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior imprisonment for child molestation was unduly prejudicial and constituted reversible error.
• State v. Tagner
  673 So. 2d 57· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-20 ·cited 12×
  In a DUI manslaughter prosecution, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's suppression of blood test evidence showing a cocaine level of .34 mg/l, holding that the evidence was not an unquantifiable trace amount and therefore must be subjected to the balanc
• Story v. State
  589 So. 2d 939· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-10-09 ·cited 12×
  Beverly Story was convicted of RICO violations, grand theft, and maintaining false citrus records arising from her fruit company transactions. The appellate court reversed her RICO and grand theft convictions, finding the trial court erred in excluding evidence that her employees
• Pinkham v. Burgess
  933 F.2d 1066· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the defendant attorney's appeal issues were not preserved and that the jury's findings on emotional distress and comparative negligence were supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Rubio-Villareal
  927 F.2d 1495· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support conspiracy convictions and that a jury instruction regarding knowledge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof, requiring reversal and a new trial for possession charges.
• United States v. Pulley
  922 F.2d 1283· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allowing two government agents to remain in the courtroom as witnesses violated Rule 615, but the error was harmless. The court also affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the hearsay or sentencing departure issues.
• Lewis v. State
  570 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-11-21 ·cited 12×
  Cornelius Ray Lewis was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a child and five counts of sexual activity with a child under 18 while in a position of custodial authority. On appeal, Lewis challenged the trial court's restriction on cross-examination regardin
• United States v. Rogers
  918 F.2d 207· D.C. Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug distribution and beeper possession was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict for drug distribution within a school zone.
• United States v. Lattimore
  902 F.2d 902· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 12×·via Undue Prejudice
  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×·via Undue Prejudice
  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×·via Undue Prejudice
  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×·via Undue Prejudice
  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. Driggs
  823 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that excluding evidence of a comprehensive scheme under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 was an abuse of discretion when it was relevant to proving essential elements of a Hobbs Act violation.
• Young v. Rabideau
  821 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about prison rules and in admitting limited cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's prior disciplinary record.
• Coast-To-Coast Stores, Inc. v. Womack-Bowers, Inc.
  818 F.2d 1398· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding prejudicial statements, evidence exclusion, denial of a new trial, or dismissal of the common law fraud claim.
• United States v. Whiteside
  810 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 12×·via Undue Prejudice
  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 v. Leisure
  807 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior marijuana transactions and in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial, and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.
• Frederick A.R. Heuring v. State
  495 So. 2d 893· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-10-13 ·cited 12×
  Frederick Heuring appeals his convictions and sentences for sexual battery of his stepdaughter. The appellate court affirms the convictions while addressing two key evidentiary and procedural issues: the admissibility of prior sexual battery evidence from twenty years earlier and
• Brooks v. Chrysler Corp.
  786 F.2d 1191· D.C. Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior occurrences under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, trial delay, and jury confusion.
• United States v. Breckenridge
  782 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 12×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence seized under a facially valid search warrant was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, even if the warrant was later found defective.
• United States v. Chavis
  772 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 12×·via Prejudicial Impact
  The court affirmed the mail fraud convictions, finding that any errors in evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were harmless.
• Cohn v. Papke
  655 F.2d 191· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's prior sexual experiences and preferences was reversible error because it was irrelevant, impermissible character evidence, and unduly prejudicial.