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. Chamley
  376 F.2d 57· 7th Cir.· 1967-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's membership in the conspiracy and that any errors regarding witness testimony and prosecutorial comments were waived or not plain error.
• Dean Rubber Mfg. Co. v. United States
  356 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1966-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the interstate shipment of defective prophylactics, even with an administrative tolerance for defects, violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and that the Act is constitutional as applied.
• Robinson v. United States
  333 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-07 ·cited 16×
  A variance between the indictment and proof of conspiracy does not affect substantial rights if the defendant was guilty of at least one conspiracy proved.
• United States v. Goss
  329 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-05 ·cited 16×
  A variance between a single conspiracy charged in the indictment and proof of multiple, disconnected conspiracies is a fundamental and fatal error that vitiates convictions.
• United States v. Doelker
  327 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1964-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for willful failure to file an income tax return, and any variance between the charge date and proof date was not material.
• United States v. Rinaldo Dominic DI Pietroantonio
  289 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently advised the defendant of the offenses charged, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Hanis v. United States
  246 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1957-07-16 ·cited 16×·via Variance From Indictment
  Knowledge by an employee of a prime contractor that the government contracts are cost-plus is not an essential element of the offenses of conspiracy or receiving prohibited payments under 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 51, 52, and 54.
• Olen v. Ritter
  230 F.2d 324· 10th Cir.· 1956-01-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the conspiracy convictions, any variance between the indictment and proof was not material or prejudicial, and the evidence was sufficient to convict Meador and Ritter of importation.
• United States v. Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc.
  184 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1950-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indictments and proof did not establish multiple conspiracies, that consolidation of indictments was proper, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Groopman
  147 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to make false statements under the National Housing Act, and that the trial court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• Monick Alexander v. State
  40 Fla. 213· Fla.· 1898-01-01 ·cited 16×
  Monick Alexander was convicted of assault with intent to murder and sentenced to three months in the penitentiary. On writ of error, he challenged the conviction on the ground that witness testimony placed the offense on an impossible date—the "fifth Sunday" in September 1897, wh
• United States v. Loney
  959 F.2d 1332· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that award coupons are 'property' for wire fraud purposes and that a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371's 'offense' prong does not require the United States to be the target. The court also affirmed the admission of business records and rejected claims of
• United States v. Nemencio Canales
  596 F.2d 664· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that any variance between the indictment and proof was not prejudicial.
• Rathbun v. United States
  236 F.2d 514· 10th Cir.· 1956-08-23 ·cited 15×
• United States v. Brandenburg
  162 F.2d 980· 3d Cir.· 1947-07-02 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a new trial, as the entrapment defense was properly submitted to the jury and there was no abuse of discretion regarding juror conduct.
• Epps v. United States
  157 F.2d 11· D.C. Cir.· 1946-07-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
• Belle Thomas alias Belle Manning v. State
  49 Fla. 123· Fla.· 1905-01-01 ·cited 15×
  Belle Thomas was convicted of murder in the second degree for killing Chap Ford and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting her challenges regarding jury instructions, variance in the victim's name, and the sufficiency of evide
• United States v. Greenwood
  974 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the government's cross-appeal of sentences and that the district court erred in sentencing based on a lower schedule of controlled substances. The court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences for resentencing.
• United States v. Filemon Sotelo Sanchez
  961 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and telephone use, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting claims of prosecutorial misconduct and variance. It also declined to review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim not raised belo
• United States v. Robinson
  956 F.2d 1388· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy and that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, tape recordings, transcripts, or evidence of prior marijuana conspiracy and imprisonment.
• United States v. Aguilar
  948 F.2d 392· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by limitations on cross-examination.
• United States v. Sutherland
  929 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admissibility of wiretap evidence in federal prosecutions is governed solely by federal law, and that a variance between the charged conspiracy and the proven conspiracy was harmless error. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in collate
• United States v. McCRIGHT
  821 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for misapplication of bank funds under 18 U.S.C. § 656, but affirmed convictions for making false entries in bank questionnaires under 18 U.S.C. § 1005.
• United States v. Begnaud
  783 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment and any variance between the indictment and proof was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Samuels
  741 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants used telephones to facilitate a heroin conspiracy, but affirmed one defendant's conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Lyons
  670 F.2d 77· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of the charged conspiracy and mail fraud, and that the trial court properly handled the issue of evidence derived from immunity negotiations.
• United States v. Whitman
  665 F.2d 313· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that amendments to the indictment narrowing the charges were permissible, the evidence was sufficient to prove intent, the jury instructions were adequate, evidentiary rulings were proper, and the prosecutor's rebuttal argument did not constitute an improper commen
• United States v. Coleman
  656 F.2d 509· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an indictment referencing a statute adequately charges an offense, even if specific elements are not explicitly detailed, when the defendant is not prejudiced and can ascertain the elements from the statute.
• United States v. Worthington
  642 F.2d 150· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the imposition of a special parole term for conspiracy is unauthorized, but affirmed convictions and sentences for drug possession and conspiracy in all other respects.
• United States v. Bush
  659 F.2d 163· D.C. Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 14×
  Amendments to an indictment to correct a clerical error in a form number are permissible if they do not affect the substance of the charge and do not mislead the defendant. The court may decline to address issues concerning other counts if their resolution would have no practical
• United States v. Dunbar
  590 F.2d 1340· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute Methaqualone was supported by overwhelming evidence and that none of the ten grounds for appeal warranted reversal.
• United States v. Kaplan
  576 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while it was error for a co-defendant to call another defendant as a witness, the error was cured by the court's instructions and the brief duration of the event, and thus not reversible. The court also held that pre-trial incarceration, even if violative of t
• United States v. Pelose
  538 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury charge on wilfulness, allowing consideration of post-due date conduct, was not plain error and did not improperly amend the information, thus affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Atchison
  524 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 14×
  A variance between the indictment's charge of kidnapping for ransom and proof of other motives is not fatal if the indictment adequately informs the defendant of the offense and does not prejudice their substantial rights.
• Chase v. United States
  468 F.2d 141· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury selection process did not violate constitutional or statutory rights, the voir dire was adequate, and the exclusion of evidence for the insanity defense was proper.
• United States v. Lewis
  426 F.2d 266· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the identity of the buyer was not fatal, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• United States v. Laite
  418 F.2d 576· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the substance of the grand jury's questions, not their exact wording, was the material matter for the perjury charge, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Cummings v. United States
  398 F.2d 377· 8th Cir.· 1968-07-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a continuance, in admitting the defendant's statements, or in its jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Jeffers v. United States
  392 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the government's theory on appeal, requiring reversal and acquittal.
• United States v. Russo
  284 F.2d 539· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conviction for transporting and conspiring to transport obscene films in interstate commerce, and that any errors were harmless.
• Dowling v. United States
  249 F.2d 746· 5th Cir.· 1957-11-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the denial of a severance motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Crosby v. United States
  231 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in eliciting testimony about a defendant's reputation in the presence of the jury, as it related to the legality of a vehicle search.
• Hodges v. United States
  223 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-02 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the conviction, finding prejudicial error due to a defective indictment and variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Epstein
  154 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1946-03-26 ·cited 14×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  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.
• Mose Roberson v. State
  42 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1900-01-01 ·cited 14×·via Variance From Indictment
  Mose Roberson was convicted of murder and appealed on grounds including denial of a change of venue and alleged defects in the indictment, particularly that it failed to allege the place of death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that while the indictmen
• United States v. Alvarez
  960 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 13×
  The court held that evidence of foreign manufacture of a firearm is sufficient to prove it traveled in interstate commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and that the inscription on the firearm was not hearsay. However, the court found that the district court erred in determ
• United States v. Miller
  895 F.2d 1431· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that evidence of a defendant's prior conviction can be admissible to show a witness's state of mind (e.g., fear) and that the erroneous admission of such evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Head
  586 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the prosecutor's selective non-recording of grand jury testimony, while improper, did not constitute reversible misconduct absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant. It also held that consensual tape recordings are not subject to the sealing requirements
• United States v. Duran
  411 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, allowing the government to reopen its case, or in its rulings on the indictment, evidence, and closing arguments.
• United States v. Moran
  984 F.2d 1299· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs, and any variance between the indictment and the proof was not prejudicial.