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

• United States v. Guido Iozzi, Jr.
  420 F.2d 512· 4th Cir.· 1970-01-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions under the Hobbs Act and Taft-Hartley Act, and that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Grover C. Bryant, Jr.
  364 F.2d 598· 4th Cir.· 1966-08-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for inspection of grand jury testimony and for severance, as the defendants failed to show a particularized need and the evidence supported a single conspiracy charge.
• United States v. Raysor
  294 F.2d 563· 3d Cir.· 1961-08-17 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Vittoria
  284 F.2d 451· 7th Cir.· 1960-12-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's participation in the conspiracy and that evidence obtained via electronic eavesdropping was admissible.
• United States v. Sing KEE
  250 F.2d 236· 2d Cir.· 1957-12-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that cross-examining a witness about asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury was proper when the witness's direct testimony created an misleading inference about his grand jury appearance, and the potential for jury prejudice was outweighed by
• Gregori v. United States
  243 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-05 ·cited 20×
  A slight variance between the indictment and the proof, which does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights, is not grounds to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
• Ferrari v. United States
  169 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1948-07-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and the evidence regarding the identity of an associate was not fatal, and the trial judge's alleged bias was not demonstrated.
• Joyce v. United States
  153 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1946-02-14 ·cited 20×
  A conspiracy to defraud the United States by corruptly administering or procuring the corrupt administration of a federal act can exist even if government officials are not parties to the conspiracy.
• United States v. Rosenberg
  150 F.2d 788· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-17 ·cited 20×·via Variance From Indictment
• United States v. Frankenberry
  696 F.2d 239· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that simultaneous possession of multiple firearms by a convicted felon constitutes a single offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1), and that the indictment's allegation of a specific date for possession made that date critical, precluding proof of separate offenses ba
• United States v. Donner
  497 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 19×
  Convictions on conspiracy and substantive counts are affirmed, except for one substantive count which is reversed due to potential reliance on constitutionally protected speech.
• Everitt W. Thompson v. United States
  342 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1965-02-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the searches of the vehicles were conducted with probable cause and were reasonable, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions to suppress evidence or in its rulings regarding the informer's testimony and jury contact.
• Ross v. State
  664 So. 2d 1004· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-10-18 ·cited 18×
  Alan Ross, leader of the West End Gang, appealed his convictions for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, challenging the statewide grand jury's jurisdiction and the joinder of these offenses for trial. The court affirmed the grand jury h
• United States v. Carrol Lee Morrow
  925 F.2d 779· 4th Cir.· 1991-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a three-level increase in offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b) was impermissible as it violated the ex post facto clause because the amended guideline was not in effect at the time of the offense. However, the conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Alga Hope, Jr.
  861 F.2d 1574· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-27 ·cited 18×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that Count I of the indictment fails to state a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 because it alleges neither a direct nor indirect fraud on the United States, and affirming the district court's dismissal is appropriate.
• United States v. Wozniak
  781 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on multiple conspiracies, as the jury could convict on a variant of the charged crime, and the evidence supported the single conspiracy charged.
• United States v. Ferrera
  746 F.2d 908· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 18×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction, and most of the defendant's challenges to the conviction and restitution order were without merit, except for the $18,000 loan which was not sufficiently proven to be caused by the offense.
• United States v. Wirsing
  719 F.2d 859· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion for severance of the conspiracy and tax evasion charges, as the joinder prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Plunkett v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  709 F.2d 1004· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The majority erred by failing to give sufficient deference to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' findings regarding the jury charge and prosecutor's argument.
• United States v. Carruth
  699 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay were unfounded, and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
• United States v. Gordon
  641 F.2d 1281· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a variance between the statute cited in the indictment and the statute used for conviction is not fatal if the indictment sufficiently charges an offense and the defendant is not prejudiced. The classification of a public official under a statute is a question
• United States v. Childs
  598 F.2d 169· D.C. Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other criminal activity was not reversible error, either because it was relevant to prove intent or because its admission was harmless error, and that the lack of a limiting instruction was not plain error.
• United States v. Levine
  569 F.2d 1175· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof showing multiple conspiracies was not prejudicial error, and a prosecutor's improper statement during closing arguments was cured by a timely instruction.
• United States v. Garguilo
  554 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support convictions for willful failure to file income tax returns and that no material variance existed between the indictment and the proof presented at trial.
• United States v. Barker
  514 F.2d 1077· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to violate civil rights by interfering with federal elections and for violating the Voting Rights Act by submitting a false ballot application.
• United States v. Antonelli
  439 F.2d 1068· 1st Cir.· 1971-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions under the federal anti-loan sharking law were valid, rejecting his claims regarding the statute's constitutionality, admissibility of evidence, and variance between the indictment and proof.
• United States v. Perlman
  430 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that jurisdiction was proper for the prosecution under 26 U.S.C. § 4742(a) and that no fatal variance existed between the crime charged and the proof presented. It also held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the deportation of his cod
• Riley v. United States
  411 F.2d 1146· 9th Cir.· 1969-05-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the arrest was lawful, evidence obtained incident to the arrest was admissible, and the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose the informer's identity.
• Danielson v. United States
  321 F.2d 441· 9th Cir.· 1963-07-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charged conspiracy and that the jury instructions on intent were prejudicially erroneous.
• Grissette v. United States
  313 F.2d 187· 5th Cir.· 1963-02-06 ·cited 18×
  A variance between the conspiracy alleged in an indictment and the proof at trial is not fatal unless it affects the substantial rights of the accused. The evidence supported the conviction on substantive counts and the jury instructions were adequate.
• Franano v. United States
  277 F.2d 511· 8th Cir.· 1960-04-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to inspect grand jury minutes, denying the mistrial motion, admitting summary exhibits, or refusing certain jury instructions, and that there were no fatal variances or insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Fareed N. Kiamie & Kiamie Mfg. Co., Inc.
  258 F.2d 924· 2d Cir.· 1958-09-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellants' contentions regarding a change in the prosecution's theory, insufficiency of evidence, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct were without substantial merit, and their convictions for corporate income tax evasion were affir
• Bozzie Nelson v. State
  97 So. 2d 250· Fla.· 1957-10-09 ·cited 18×
  Bozzie Nelson was convicted of murder in the first degree for stabbing Sarah Jane Campbell with an ice pick. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence, finding the evidence of premeditation overwhelming and the trial procedures properly conducted.
• United States v. Burdick
  221 F.2d 932· 3d Cir.· 1955-05-06 ·cited 18×
  The conviction is sustainable without resort to the net worth theory, as the defendant was convicted for failing to report admitted taxable income.
• Hardy Joseph Owens and John Link Cogdill v. United States
  221 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous and the proof did not show a material variance, affirming the convictions because any potential errors did not substantially prejudice the appellants.
• Land v. United States
  177 F.2d 346· 4th Cir.· 1949-10-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the introduction of evidence concerning quantities and dates of distilled spirits slightly varying from the indictment and bill of particulars, and the questioning about a prior civil forfeiture, did not constitute reversible error.
• Jang Han BAE v. Peters
  950 F.2d 469· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied Bae's habeas corpus petition, affirming the state court's admission of his confession and rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
• United States v. LEV
  258 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that any variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof of two conspiracies was harmless error, and that the refusal to produce a witness statement was also harmless error given statutory limitations.
• United States v. Palmaria Brown and Sharon Dixon Porter
  887 F.2d 537· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846, and that circumstantial evidence can suffice to identify a substance as cocaine. However, the court found that the trial court erred in incorporating a mandatory minimum sentence
• United States v. Nathan
  816 F.2d 230· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 16×
• United States v. Morse
  785 F.2d 771· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment was not duplicitous, there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, the investments constituted securities, and the jury instructions adequately conveyed the requirement of unanimity on the single scheme.
• United States v. Dekle
  768 F.2d 1257· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and evidence, joinder of defendants was proper, and various evidentiary rulings were either harmless error or not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Collins
  690 F.2d 670· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment was not vague, the evidence was sufficient, the jury instructions and evidence admission were proper, and the sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment.
• United States v. DeBROUSE
  652 F.2d 383· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Taft-Hartley Act prohibits a union official from requesting payments to a third party, even if the official does not directly receive the funds, and that the statute of limitations does not bar prosecution if the illegal request or acceptance occurred with
• United States v. Diana
  605 F.2d 1307· 4th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 16×
  The government's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in judicially sealing wiretap evidence, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a), necessitates suppression of the evidence.
• United States v. Neiswender
  590 F.2d 1269· 4th Cir.· 1979-01-09 ·cited 16×
  A defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 1503 by intentionally undertaking an act or arrangement where the reasonably foreseeable consequence is to obstruct justice, even if their hope is that the judicial machinery will not be seriously impaired.
• United States v. Anton
  547 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that misdelivered mail remains 'in the mail' even after lawful removal from a receptacle, and a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the exact location of the theft is harmless if it does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. RAY
  514 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' receipt and retention of stolen property constituted a willful conversion punishable under 15 U.S.C. § 714m(c), not 18 U.S.C. § 641, and that the indictment's miscitation of the statute did not prejudice the defendants.
• United States v. Dreer
  457 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment and proof was not fatal to the conviction, and the sentence was not improper.
• United States v. Anderson
  425 F.2d 330· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 16×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  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.