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. Simone
  931 F.2d 1186· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants waived their challenge to the indictment by not raising it pre-trial, that the jury instructions on conspiracy were proper, and that Bosko's trial counsel provided effective assistance.
• United States v. Woods
  877 F.2d 477· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a bank officer's willful misapplication of bank funds, even without actual loss to the bank, is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 656 if the officer deprives the bank of possession, control, or use of its funds with intent to injure or defraud.
• United States v. Ford
  872 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court should require a new trial on Counts I and II due to the extreme prejudice caused by admitting evidence of six prior violent felonies.
• United States v. Mollica
  849 F.2d 723· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions and evidence presented constructively amended the indictment, potentially convicting the defendant of an offense other than that charged by the grand jury.
• United States v. Santa-Manzano
  842 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the indictment charged a scheme to sell fake certificates of deposit to buyers, but the evidence proved a scheme to placate a victim with fake certificates after obtaining his money. This variance between the indictment and the proof was material and constitut
• United States v. Bartle
  835 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1987-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the INS should be affirmed, as there was no material variance between the indictment and the proof, the admission of evidence not disclosed in discovery was permissible, and the trial court did not err
• United States v. Neuroth
  809 F.2d 339· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an "on or about" jury instruction is not per se prohibited when a defendant presents an alibi defense for a specific date, and any error in giving such an instruction is subject to harmless error analysis.
• United States v. Crooks
  766 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, and that the trial court did not err in denying severance, suppressing statements, or admitting co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Olinger
  759 F.2d 1293· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a conspiracy to cast false votes in an election that includes federal offices violates 18 U.S.C. § 241, even if the primary motive was to affect state or local elections. The court also affirmed that the right to vote is protected under the Fourteenth Amendmen
• United States v. Mize
  756 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the conviction must be reversed because the government failed to prove the bank was a 'member bank' as alleged in the indictment, and the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by allowing conviction based on the bank being an 'insured bank'.
• United States v. Moosey
  735 F.2d 633· 1st Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that evidence of prior cocaine deliveries was admissible for the conspiracy count with a limiting instruction, and that coconspirator statements were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
• United States v. Hess
  691 F.2d 984· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict for conspiracy and substantive offenses, and that a dismantled tractor could still constitute a 'motor vehicle' under 18 U.S.C. § 2313.
• United States v. German Fidel Cueto
  628 F.2d 1273· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 12×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were proper and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, affirming the sentence.
• United States v. Estell
  539 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's stated amount of heroin and the actual amount is not fatal, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's unrelated misconduct.
• United States v. Leong
  536 F.2d 993· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy and that venue was properly established for the substantive offense. The court also rejected claims of double jeopardy and prejudice from other defendants' claims.
• United States v. Hand
  497 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-26 ·cited 12×
• United States v. Marshall
  471 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted the issue of insanity to the jury and that a variance between the indictment and proof was not fatal.
• United States v. Sheehan
  428 F.2d 67· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of Better Business Bureau complaint files and manufacturer correspondence was not reversible error, either because it was properly admitted for limited purposes or constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Helms v. United States
  310 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in admitting bank records or in allowing the jury to correct an inadvertent verdict form error.
• Griffin v. United States
  272 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1959-12-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that consolidating separate indictments over defendant's objection was prejudicial error, and a fatal variance existed between the indictment and proof.
• United States v. Keenan
  267 F.2d 118· 7th Cir.· 1959-03-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that defendants' procedural and evidentiary claims lacked merit, affirming the convictions.
• Ramsey v. United States
  245 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1957-03-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the search warrant was valid, the search of the curtilage was permissible, and the destruction of contraband was lawful, thus the motion to suppress was properly denied.
• United States v. D'Ercole
  225 F.2d 611· 2d Cir.· 1955-08-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy conviction and that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding evidence and witness testimony.
• Stevens v. United States
  206 F.2d 64· 6th Cir.· 1953-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the government must prove the specific false statements alleged in the indictment, but proof of any one of them is sufficient, and summaries of voluminous records are admissible if accurate.
• Smiley v. United States
  186 F.2d 903· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the specific deputy sheriff to whom a false statement was made is not fatal if it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused.
• Braverman v. United States
  125 F.2d 283· 6th Cir.· 1942-01-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions on all seven counts of conspiracy, and that the prosecutions were not barred by the statute of limitations.
• Peterson v. State
  41 Fla. 285· Fla.· 1899-01-01 ·cited 12×
  Daniel Peterson was convicted of assault with intent to murder for firing a pistol at a riverboat to force its return. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an indictment alleging assault with a pistol need not specify the manner of use, and that the evidence sufficien
• United States v. Aquilla
  976 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the distribution and telephone facilitation counts, and that the conspiracy conviction was valid based on a narrower conspiracy to distribute cocaine to the informant, even if the broader conspiracy
• United States v. Odom
  736 F.2d 104· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendants waived their objection to the receipt of unsworn and incompetent testimony by failing to object to the jury instructions.
• Dozier v. State
  662 So. 2d 382· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-11-01 ·cited 10×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  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. Goines
  988 F.2d 750· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy and firearms charges against the appellants and upholding the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Arlen
  947 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government can establish the "intent to defraud or mislead" requirement for a felony conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 333(b) by showing the defendant intended to defraud or mislead a government agency, not necessarily the purchaser of the drugs. The court also
• United States v. Reynaldo De Jesus Restrepo-Contreras
  942 F.2d 96· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was no impermissible variance between the charge and proof, sufficient evidence supported the conviction, and the weight of the beeswax-cocaine mixture was correctly used for sentencing.
• United States v. Johnstone
  856 F.2d 539· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an indictment is sufficient if it states the elements of the offense and fairly informs the defendant, and that the underlying drug felony for a § 843(b) conviction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Gentry
  839 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that searches were justified by probable cause or consent, evidence supported conspiracy charges, and defenses like entrapment and overreaching were not applicable.
• Browning v. Foltz
  837 F.2d 276· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 10×
  A violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and even if it did, no violation occurred in this case. Furthermore, the court found no reversible error regarding jury instructions, ineff
• United States v. Casey
  835 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting voir dire and that the verdict forms did not improperly amend the indictment.
• United States v. Gaston Bouquett
  820 F.2d 165· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant received sufficient notice of the conspiracy charge and that the jury instructions did not impermissibly invite conviction under alternative theories of guilt.
• United States v. Smith
  806 F.2d 971· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecutor's improper use of co-conspirators' guilty pleas as substantive evidence, without cautionary instructions, constituted plain error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Schurr
  775 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's broad conspiracy allegations and the narrower conspiracy proven at trial was not material because it did not prejudice the defendants' substantial rights.
• United States v. Holtzen
  718 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to vacate sentence, as the claims raised were either previously decided, frivolous, or failed to meet the required legal standards.
• United States v. Coward
  630 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1980-09-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and proof of separate conspiracies, coupled with jury confusion, resulted in prejudice to the defendants, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Phillips
  625 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 10×
  Forfeiture of bail is not a condition precedent to a bail jumping conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 3150, and a variance between the indictment date and the proof is not prejudicial if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Jordan
  626 F.2d 928· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the $110,000 allegation as surplusage, and that the defendant failed to show prejudice regarding potential parole implications.
• United States v. Gallipoli
  599 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an intermediate transfer of a prisoner between jurisdictions under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, which had no practical or legal effect on the federal convictions, did not void the federal indictment. The court also held that an indictment's use of th
• Spratlin v. Solem
  577 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instruction on agency, while potentially confusing, did not rise to the level of constitutional error required for federal habeas relief.
• United States v. Pryor
  574 F.2d 440· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that filing an IRS Form 1040 with only a name and address is not a valid return, and that the information charged in the indictment was not fatally varied from the evidence presented at trial.
• State v. Ward
  354 So. 2d 125· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-01-24 ·cited 10×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that insufficient proof of ownership of the burglarized structure is a material element that requires a new trial.
• United States v. Variano
  550 F.2d 1330· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the convictions for conducting an illegal gambling business were supported by sufficient evidence and that the procedural and evidentiary issues raised by the appellants were without merit.
• United States v. Salerno
  485 F.2d 260· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendants were members of the overall conspiracy charged, and that the trial court's jury instructions were proper.