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. DiPRIMA
  472 F.2d 550· 1st Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a mother's consent to search her apartment, including her son's room, was valid, and the son's silence constituted consent. The court also held that an aider and abettor charge is not a fatal variance from a direct commission charge.
• United States v. Rutilio Lorenzo Petti
  459 F.2d 294· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is permissible even if the evidence shows larceny rather than embezzlement, as charged, because the statute consolidates these offenses and any variance was harmless.
• United States v. Becker
  444 F.2d 510· 4th Cir.· 1971-06-28 ·cited 10×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that the defendants were properly sentenced under the general escape statute, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), not the juvenile escape statute, 18 U.S.C. § 751(b).
• United States v. Edelman
  414 F.2d 539· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that a variance in dates in the bill of particulars was immaterial.
• United States v. Bagdasian
  398 F.2d 971· 4th Cir.· 1968-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tax evasion and subscribing to a false tax return, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• McINTYRE v. United States
  380 F.2d 822· 8th Cir.· 1967-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the appellant stole copper tubing from an interstate shipment valued over $100.00.
• United States v. Wanton
  380 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government's evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict that the appellant possessed cocaine, despite the inability to definitively link a specific package to him.
• United States v. Marks
  274 F.2d 15· 7th Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 10×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  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.
• Bridgman v. United States
  183 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that inconsistent verdicts are not fatal to a conviction, and that the evidence supported a finding of a single, comprehensive scheme to defraud, thus affirming the convictions.
• Peters v. United States
  160 F.2d 319· 8th Cir.· 1947-02-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, adequately informed the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cattle transported were indeed the stolen property of George Shellenberger.
• United States v. Wernes
  157 F.2d 797· 7th Cir.· 1946-11-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict of guilt for violations of the Securities Act and Mail Fraud Act, and that the defendants' various defenses, including the statute of limitations and self-incrimination, were without merit.
• McGUNNIGAL v. United States
  151 F.2d 162· 1st Cir.· 1945-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a single conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the admission of certain evidence was proper.
• Barker v. State
  78 Fla. 477· Fla.· 1919-11-22 ·cited 10×
  Charlie Barker was convicted of uttering a forged order for $3.00. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the actual instrument offered at trial materially differed from the instrument described in the indictment (particularly in the amount, which appeared as $300 rather than
• Ponder v. State
  76 Fla. 526· Fla.· 1918-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for permitting gambling in a place of business. The court held that the evidence supported the charge that the defendant had exclusive control over the business, despite his claim of joint ownership and management with his brother.
• Gus Drummer v. State
  45 Fla. 17· Fla.· 1903-01-01 ·cited 10×
  Gus Drummer was convicted of assault with intent to murder with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he challenged the conviction based on an alleged variance between the indictment (which charged assault with a pistol) and the trial evidence (which proved assault with a gun). The Florida
• Arch Givens v. State
  40 Fla. 200· Fla.· 1898-01-01 ·cited 10×
  Arch Givens was convicted of breaking and entering a store-house, but the evidence showed he broke into a gin-house instead. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, finding a fatal variance between the indictment's description of the building and the proof at trial.
• United States v. Faulhaber
  929 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, that the indictment was not multiplicitous, and that there was no impermissible variance between the charges and the evidence presented.
• Bradley v. State
  206 So. 2d 657· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-02-07 ·cited 9×
  William Bradley was convicted of uttering a forged check. He appealed on two grounds: an alleged variance between the maker's name in the information and on the check itself, and a claim that his identification at a police line-up without counsel violated his constitutional right
• Meyers v. State
  84 Fla. 508· Fla.· 1922-11-01 ·cited 9×
  This case reviews a conviction for forgery and uttering a forged instrument. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's proceedings regarding the defendant's right to counsel, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the indictment's validity.
• Buddy Ray Wykle v. State
  659 So. 2d 1287· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant waived appellate review of hearsay admissibility and the suppression of evidence by failing to properly preserve these issues at trial, and that a variance in the dates of the alleged crime did not warrant a judgment of acquittal.
• United States v. Maholias
  985 F.2d 869· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove Maholias was a member of a single conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and that the admission of certain testimony was not plain error or reversible error.
• United States v. Rusel J. Jagim
  978 F.2d 1032· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of all defendants, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings on plea withdrawals, continuances, severances, or sentencing enhancements.
• United States v. Patino
  962 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 8×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that a conspiracy to kidnap qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and that the prosecutor's summation did not impermissibly amend the indictment.
• United States v. Stevenson
  942 F.2d 1111· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction for Gary Stevenson and that the evidentiary rulings and sentences for Gary Stevenson, Barry Stevenson, and Ronald Vesper were not abuses of discretion.
• United States v. Rodman Wolfe Jordan
  890 F.2d 247· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar prosecution, the jury instructions were proper, there was no fatal variance, and the conditions of probation, including restitution and no new debts, were not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Corky Nunez
  877 F.2d 1470· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Kelley
  849 F.2d 999· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of a single conspiracy and that the admission of evidence concerning other deals was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Davenport
  808 F.2d 1212· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction and that the trial court's failure to give specific jury instructions on multiple conspiracies was harmless error. The search of Davenport's truck was also deemed lawful.
• Cola v. Reardon
  787 F.2d 681· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the conviction was fundamentally unfair due to inadequate notice in the bill of particulars and jury instructions.
• United States v. LEE
  782 F.2d 133· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence presented, and that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Goldman
  750 F.2d 1221· 4th Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions should be affirmed as the trial court did not err in denying severance motions, in its venue instructions, or in finding no fatal variance between the indictment and proof, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Louie R. Grugette
  678 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term "application" in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 can reasonably include documents submitted to fulfill loan preconditions, and that the restitution condition did not present a ripe equal protection issue.
• United States v. Fekri
  650 F.2d 1044· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law and that the government's conduct did not violate due process.
• United States v. Felts
  602 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that indictments for drug distribution are not fatally defective for failing to allege a lack of authorization, and that the evidence supported a continuing conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
• United States v. Dunn
  577 F.2d 119· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Dunn's recantation, admitting his prior immunized grand jury testimony was false, justified using that immunized testimony to establish the corpus delicti for his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1623(c). The court also found the indictment sufficiently stated an
• United States v. Ratner
  502 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury's finding of obscenity was supported by evidence and that the defendants' procedural and substantive arguments lacked merit.
• United States v. Fruge
  492 F.2d 1163· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant's numerous claims of prejudicial error were without merit and affirmed his conviction.
• United States v. Henderson
  434 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Goff
  430 F.2d 396· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish illegal intent and that any errors in the indictment or cross-examination were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Pipefitters Local Union NO. 562
  434 F.2d 1116· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial, finding the jury instructions erroneous by not properly allowing the jury to consider whether contributions were voluntary.
• United States v. Fortney
  399 F.2d 406· 3d Cir.· 1968-08-14 ·cited 8×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that including notes representing no real transaction as assets and failing to reflect payments constitutes a false entry, and a prosecutor's remark, in context, was not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Henson
  365 F.2d 282· 6th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment charging one conspiracy and the proof showing multiple conspiracies was not prejudicial, and that the trial court's admonition to the jury was sufficient to cure any error regarding inadmissible testimony.
• Wood v. United States
  342 F.2d 708· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on an element not charged in the indictment, namely 'breaking the seal,' which constituted a prejudicial variance from the proof required for conviction.
• Bram v. United States
  302 F.2d 58· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a variance between a conjunctive indictment and proof of only one of the conjunctively alleged offenses does not warrant vacating a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, especially when the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
• Chargois v. United States
  267 F.2d 410· 9th Cir.· 1959-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while evidence supported conviction for transportation for prostitution under Count II, the evidence for Count I was insufficient and jury instructions were potentially misleading, leading to reversal of Count I conviction.
• Carlson v. United States
  249 F.2d 85· 10th Cir.· 1957-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to carry on the business of a retail liquor dealer at the Chambless residence, as no affirmative acts of sale or offer to sell occurred there.
• Gibson v. United States
  244 F.2d 32· 4th Cir.· 1957-04-27 ·cited 8×
  A misdescription of the sentencing court in an escape indictment does not invalidate the indictment if it otherwise sufficiently charges the offense.
• Abram Flaxer v. United States
  235 F.2d 821· D.C. Cir.· 1956-06-21 ·cited 8×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the appellant was properly convicted for willfully failing to produce records as directed by a Senate subcommittee subpoena, as he was clearly apprised of the demand despite his objections.
• Harold Thomas Hermansen alias Ford Hermansen v. United States
  228 F.2d 495· 5th Cir.· 1956-01-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the mailing of false certificates to obtain license plates was in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, even if the sales and receipt of money occurred prior to the mailing. The jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. Bach
  151 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1945-12-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof regarding the identity of the buyer.