Variance Between Charge And Proof

15 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Wallace v. State
  26 So. 713· Fla.· 1899-06-01 ·cited 409×
  An information charging malicious threats to accuse another of a crime with intent to extort money need only allege the substance of the threats, not the exact language used. Threats against different individuals constitute separate and distinct offenses, even if part of a single
• United States v. Spears
  449 F.2d 946· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the assault charge under the Federal Mail Robbery Statute merged with the completed robbery conviction under D.C. law, precluding separate convictions for the same act. The court also found no fatal variance between the charge and proof for the robbery convict
• Herbert v. Imholte
  226 F.2d 585· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the offense of aiding and abetting tax evasion is complete upon the filing of the false return, and evidence of acts committed prior to the statute of limitations period is admissible to prove intent and the commission of the offense.
• Cooper v. The City of Miami
  160 Fla. 656· Fla.· 1948-07-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not sustain the charge of keeping a gambling device, and thus the conviction was improper.
• United States v. Anderson
  425 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) and rejected the defendant's arguments regarding statutory interpretation and the de minimis doctrine.
• United States v. Epstein
  154 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1946-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mail fraud, as the defendant's participation in various fraudulent schemes, including the use of forged Treasury documents, was within the scope of the overall scheme he agreed to.
• Dozier v. State
  662 So. 2d 382· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-11-01 ·cited 10×
  Dozier appealed his burglary and petit theft conviction. The court reversed based on a prior holding that county judges lack jurisdiction over felony criminal cases, but addressed alternative arguments that the trailer was not a 'structure' under the burglary statute and that jur
• United States v. Marks
  274 F.2d 15· 7th Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for transporting a female across state lines for the purpose of debauchery, and that the trial court did not err in allowing impeachment of a government witness.
• State v. Harris
  334 So. 2d 674· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-02 ·cited 6×
  Florida appealed the dismissal of an auto theft charge against Harris, who had lawfully rented a car but failed to return it on the due date. The trial court dismissed the information, finding the conduct constituted the lesser misdemeanor of failure to return a rented vehicle ra
• United States v. van Buren
  513 F.2d 1327· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a variance between alleging distribution of cocaine and proving distribution of cocaine hydrochloride is not fatal, and an erroneous jury instruction favorable to the defendant does not require reversal.
• Mohawk Ref. Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  263 F.2d 818· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure to disclose that motor oil was re-refined from used oil, when sold in containers appearing to hold new oil, constituted a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, even if the re-refined oil was of equal quality.
• United States v. Drury
  687 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for mail fraud was not erroneous, as the evidence supported a scheme to defraud clients by breaching fiduciary duties through undisclosed kickbacks, even if insurance companies were not defrauded.
• Hagy v. State
  347 So. 2d 773· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-06-21 ·cited 4×
  Affirmed conviction for larceny where appellant was charged with stealing cash but proof showed stolen checks were negotiated through her account, as no variance objection was preserved at trial and checks constitute the same property interest as cash for larceny purposes.
• Zaremba v. State
  452 So. 2d 1026· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-05
  Zaremba, a loan officer, was convicted of six counts of mortgage fraud under Florida law for forging borrowers' names on loan documents and diverting loan proceeds through his own company to charge undisclosed broker fees. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient ev
• Sherwood v. State
  221 So. 2d 154· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-15
  The court held that there was no material variance between the charge and the proof, and the defendant was not prejudiced in his defense.