Variance Between Indictment And Proof

750 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 59 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wallace v. State
  26 So. 713· Fla.· 1899-06-01 ·cited 409×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  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
• Cannon v. State
  107 So. 360· Fla.· 1926-01-30 ·cited 398×·via Variance From Indictment
  Bessie Cannon was convicted of manslaughter for recklessly driving an automobile that struck and killed Mrs. B. L. Carr. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the trial court's jury instructions on culpable negligence failed to adequately convey the heightened d
• United States v. Varelli
  407 F.2d 735· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-11 ·cited 322×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a single overall conspiracy, and the defendants were prejudiced by being tried together for multiple conspiracies without proper jury instructions. Therefore, the convictions are voided.
• United States v. Vito Agueci
  310 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-08 ·cited 320×
  The court held that the jury instructions on conspiracy adequately conveyed the necessary elements, including knowledge of illegal importation, and that the evidence supported a finding of a single continuing conspiracy, not multiple separate ones.
• United States v. Mayo Perez
  489 F.2d 51· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-25 ·cited 276×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy, and that joinder and severance rulings were within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Carmine Tramunti
  513 F.2d 1087· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 252×
  The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest DiNapoli and Papa and to search the suitcase, and therefore the contents were admissible.
• United States v. Martino
  648 F.2d 367· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 217×
  The court held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is constitutional and that the indictment, charges, and joint trial were proper. Convictions were sustained.
• Gaither v. United States
  413 F.2d 1061· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-08 ·cited 213×
  The court held that while the indictment procedure used was defective because the grand jury as a body did not approve the final indictment, it did not prejudice the defendants, and therefore their convictions are affirmed.
• United States v. Adams
  759 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 184×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial, seized weapons were admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants.
• United States v. Papia
  560 F.2d 827· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 183×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence, proper admission of co-conspirator statements, and no abuse of discretion in denying severance motions.
• United States v. Taylor
  464 F.2d 240· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 176×
  The court held that the standard of evidence necessary for a judge to send a case to the jury is not the same in civil and criminal cases, and that the 'Second Circuit rule' requiring a single standard is overruled.
• United States v. Russell
  703 F.2d 1243· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted co-conspirator statements.
• Poliafico v. United States
  237 F.2d 97· 6th Cir.· 1956-08-31 ·cited 158×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Cole
  755 F.2d 748· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy to import marijuana and attempted importation, and that various procedural challenges raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Baxter
  492 F.2d 150· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 156×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of an over-all narcotics conspiracy and the participation of each of the eight defendants, and that the trial court did not err in denying their motions for severance.
• United States v. Kennedy
  564 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 155×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper, denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury or in rejecting a requested jury instructi
• Koolish v. United States
  340 F.2d 513· 8th Cir.· 1965-01-25 ·cited 150×
  The court held that the government proved a prima facie case of mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict, rejecting claims of fatal variance.
• United States v. Aristedes Drougas
  748 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-07 ·cited 149×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy charges and that joint trials were permissible and not prejudicial.
• United States v. Cohen
  145 F.2d 82· 2d Cir.· 1944-08-08 ·cited 148×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict against the appealing defendants for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in its conduct of the trial.
• United States v. Kenny
  645 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 144×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on the order of proof, admission of evidence, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Andolschek
  142 F.2d 503· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-24 ·cited 142×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the exclusion of official reports was prejudicial error requiring a new trial, and that Andolschek was immune from prosecution due to his grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Johnson
  575 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-05 ·cited 139×
  The court held that there was no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, nor between the bill of particulars and the proof, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to define statutory terms like 'organizer' or 'substantial income'.
• United States v. Kenny
  462 F.2d 1205· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 139×
  The court held that the indictment was not vague, duplicitous, or fatally varied, and that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Caporale
  806 F.2d 1487· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 136×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to violate RICO, finding sufficient evidence of a single overarching conspiracy and no prejudicial variance or jury tampering.
• United States v. Houshang Sheikh
  654 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 135×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy conviction when the defendant's alleged coconspirators were acquitted, but affirmed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Marchisio
  344 F.2d 653· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-09 ·cited 133×
  The court held that the convictions for perjury, false statements, and conspiracy were proper, and the trial court committed no error in admitting or excluding evidence.
• United States v. Provenzano
  620 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 132×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the RICO charges, that the association constituted a RICO enterprise, and that various alleged trial errors, including the admission of certain testimony and juror misconduct, did not warran
• United States v. Calabro
  467 F.2d 973· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 132×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for forgery and conspiracy charges, and that defendants were not prejudiced by the alleged variance in conspiracy charges or denial of counsel.
• Himmelfarb v. United States
  175 F.2d 924· 9th Cir.· 1949-06-03 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial based on 'once in jeopardy' and in admitting evidence, as the jury discharge was based on manifest necessity and the evidence was relevant and properly admitted.
• United States v. Bertolotti
  529 F.2d 149· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 131×
  The court affirmed convictions for some defendants and reversed and remanded for a new trial for others.
• United States v. Noble
  754 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 126×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy, the admission of a prior conviction for impeachment was proper, and the defendant knowingly waived his right to conflict-free counsel.
• United States v. Dunn
  564 F.2d 348· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 126×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of Dunn, Milligan, Mandeville, and Shinafelt for conspiracy and attempt to import hashish, but sufficient for Zeligs.
• United States v. Mealy
  851 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence or responding to jury questions.
• United States v. Flaherty
  668 F.2d 566· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 120×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession of stolen goods, and that the jury instructions were appropriate.
• United States v. Dante Angelo Grassi and Jack Louis Gail
  616 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-14 ·cited 120×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Grassi's conviction for conspiracy under count 1, but sufficient for his conviction under count 2. The court also found sufficient evidence for Gail's conspiracy conviction and rejected his entrapment defense.
• United States v. Eubanks
  591 F.2d 513· 9th Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 118×
  The court, in a concurring opinion, expresses concerns that the prosecution's broad conspiracy charge and joinder of multiple defendants may have abused joinder powers and created undue prejudice, potentially outweighing judicial economy benefits.
• United States v. Butler
  494 F.2d 1246· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-04 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of appellants Butler, Gregg, and Slomkowski for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and reversed their convictions. The court reversed Reinke's convictions based on a procedural error regarding the sing
• United States v. Morado
  454 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-12 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove conspiracy for two appellants, while sufficient for six others. It also rejected claims regarding the indictment's wording and the admissibility of evidence.
• United States v. Gary L. "Scott" Dickey
  736 F.2d 571· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 117×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Friedrich's conviction for conspiracy.
• United States v. Mason Townsend
  924 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 116×
  The court held that a buyer-seller relationship, without more, is insufficient to prove a conspiracy, as it does not demonstrate a mutual agreement to achieve a criminal objective beyond the transaction itself.
• United States v. Lamont Arnold Zemek
  634 F.2d 1159· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for racketeering conspiracy and related offenses, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Panebianco
  543 F.2d 447· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-14 ·cited 116×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence, conspiracy, statute of limitations, venue, search and seizure, or juror bias.
• United States v. Cianchetti
  315 F.2d 584· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-21 ·cited 116×
  The court held that knowledge of a conspiracy does not equate to participation, and reversed the conviction of one appellant due to insufficient evidence of his involvement. It also reversed another's conviction due to the improper admission of hearsay evidence without limiting i
• United States v. Knuckles
  581 F.2d 305· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 114×
  The court held that defendants could not raise the issue of insufficient evidence of cocaine on appeal after they had argued for a variance based on the presence of cocaine evidence at trial. The court also found the admission of a co-defendant's statement and recordings of conve
• United States v. Enright
  579 F.2d 980· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard, not the prima facie case standard, applies under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) for determining the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, but the trial court's use of the latter was not plain error. The court
• United States v. Becker
  569 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-20 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of a single conspiracy to defraud and the convictions on substantive counts, rejecting claims of fatal variance and severance errors.
• United States v. Emslie Leander Moore
  522 F.2d 1068· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement as an admission by silence against Floyd Moore was improper due to insufficient foundational evidence, and that the statement was also inadmissible as a co-conspirator's declaration. The court affirmed Lee Moore's co
• United States v. Valencia
  609 F.2d 603· 2d Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the issue of single versus multiple conspiracies could not be determined as a matter of law, and that the evidence permitted a finding of several conspiracies. The court affirmed convictions for those clearly linked to a narrower, sufficiently proved conspirac
• United States v. Khoury
  901 F.2d 948· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-21 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the subsequent search of Kluver's diary, conducted under the guise of an inventory search, violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and this constitutional error was not harmless. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the convictions of other appell