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

• Burk v. United States
  134 F.2d 879· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and the conviction for carrying on the business of a distiller, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error.
• United States v. Hunt
  120 F.2d 592· 7th Cir.· 1941-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the alleged trial errors did not prejudice the defendants.
• United States v. Montanye
  962 F.2d 1332· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-06 ·cited 7×
• Tingley v. State
  495 So. 2d 1181· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-08-28 ·cited 7×
  Raymond Tingley appeals his conviction for four counts of sexual battery on children, challenging whether the state's amendments to its bill of particulars—which specified dates different from those in the indictment—constituted an impermissible amendment of the indictment requir
• United States v. Hoke
  610 F.2d 678· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to give a requested alibi instruction, as it was not cumulative and addressed a specific danger of jury misinterpretation.
• United States v. Chacon
  436 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's letter did not provide sufficient facts to require the local board to reopen his conscientious objector classification, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.
• Heaton v. United States
  353 F.2d 288· 9th Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently described the unlawfully imported property and that the regulation was a valid exercise of authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
• United States v. Marshall
  985 F.2d 901· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of evidence, indictment usage, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, variance between indictment and proof, jury instructions, or the handling of agent's notes.
• United States v. Powell
  982 F.2d 1422· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute marijuana were supported by sufficient evidence and that their various procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Rosnow
  977 F.2d 399· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the conspiracy convictions must be reversed due to a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof, as multiple conspiracies were proven but tried as one without adequate limiting instructions. However, all other substantive convictions were affirm
• United States v. Bello-Perez
  977 F.2d 664· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported a single conspiracy charge and that various evidentiary and sentencing challenges lacked merit.
• United States v. Green
  964 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed Green's convictions for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and money laundering, finding sufficient evidence and rejecting his challenges to the indictment.
• United States v. Arnold
  890 F.2d 825· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing cross-examination of an alibi witness regarding prior drug dealings for impeachment purposes, nor was the defendant unfairly prejudiced by evidence of a later marijuana transaction or the handling of
• United States v. Corpus
  882 F.2d 546· 1st Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute, and that no due process violation occurred regarding the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. Chavez
  845 F.2d 219· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants were affirmatively misled by a misleading bill of particulars regarding the identity of supervisees, prejudicing their substantial rights.
• United States v. Johnnie Bernard Mack (86-1536)
  837 F.2d 254· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and that the admission of hearsay evidence was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Gorman
  807 F.2d 1299· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (conflict of interest) and 18 U.S.C. § 201(g) (illegal gratuity), and that the proofs did not prejudicially vary from the indictment.
• United States v. Ford
  797 F.2d 1329· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 6×
  A federal magistrate's participation in jury selection does not violate statutory provisions or due process, and a minor variance between the indictment and evidence regarding a vehicle identification number does not warrant reversal.
• Griffin v. Aiken
  775 F.2d 1226· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant did not demonstrate circumstances justifying a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel, nor did he meet the Strickland standard for deficient performance and prejudice. Furthermore, his due process and Fourth/Fifth Amendment claims were
• United States v. Coward
  669 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the retrial did not violate double jeopardy, the indictment was not impermissibly amended, the jury instructions cured any prejudice from the indictment sent to the jury room, and the admission of evidence and prosecutor's remarks were proper.
• United States v. Massey
  629 F.2d 1084· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for presenting falsified bills of sale and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.
• State v. Mayor
  378 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-01-15 ·cited 6×
  Florida appeals the dismissal of a second information charging Mayor with firearms offenses, arguing the trial court erred in finding former jeopardy barred prosecution. The court reversed, holding that because the first information mistakenly stated the offense occurred at 2 p.m
• United States v. Bowline
  593 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1979-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial of defendants on a conspiracy count when the trial court dismisses the count based on the insufficiency of the government's evidence presented during trial.
• Huie E. Krana v. United States
  546 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting coconspirator testimony conditionally and in allowing an amendment to the indictment regarding the date of the offense.
• State v. Harris
  334 So. 2d 674· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-02 ·cited 6×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  Florida appealed the dismissal of an auto theft charge against Harris, who had lawfully rented a car but failed to return it on the due date. The trial court dismissed the information, finding the conduct constituted the lesser misdemeanor of failure to return a rented vehicle ra
• United States v. van Buren
  513 F.2d 1327· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 6×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that a variance between alleging distribution of cocaine and proving distribution of cocaine hydrochloride is not fatal, and an erroneous jury instruction favorable to the defendant does not require reversal.
• United States v. Rauch
  491 F.2d 552· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for failing to keep the draft board informed of his home address, and there was no variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Patterson
  477 F.2d 558· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction should be affirmed because no prejudice resulted from the alleged variance in the indictment, and the forgery counts were sufficient.
• United States v. Carter
  454 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1972-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the indictment's use of conjunctive terms and the jury instruction's use of disjunctive terms were proper, and that the prosecutor's question to a defense witness, even if error, was harmless.
• United States v. Walker
  453 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof of conspiracy was not fatal, co-conspirator testimony was sufficient, and compelling handwriting exemplars did not violate constitutional rights.
• United States v. Holtzman
  440 F.2d 923· 7th Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence supported convictions for both unlawful sale and unlawful possession of stimulant drugs, and that the admission of prior crime evidence for impeachment and the jury instructions regarding hearsay were proper.
• United States v. Slaton
  430 F.2d 1109· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's failure to hold a conference on jury instructions was harmless error, and there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Armantrout
  411 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1969-05-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence adequately supported the jury's verdict of guilty for mail fraud, and that there was no significant variance between the indictment and the proof presented.
• United States v. Satiris Galahad Fassoulis
  293 F.2d 243· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant devised a scheme to defraud and caused an interstate wire communication for the purpose of executing that scheme, and that the defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated.
• Mohawk Ref. Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  263 F.2d 818· 3d Cir.· 1959-02-12 ·cited 6×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that the failure to disclose that motor oil was re-refined from used oil, when sold in containers appearing to hold new oil, constituted a deceptive practice under the FTC Act, even if the re-refined oil was of equal quality.
• United States v. Pile
  256 F.2d 954· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant's refusal to sign a waiver of immunity before testifying before a grand jury does not, by itself, constitute an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court also held that minor discrepancies between the indictm
• United States v. Eisenberg
  238 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1956-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government sufficiently proved the seized tubes were part of the interstate shipment described in the indictment.
• Richards v. Matthews
  207 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1953-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that the relator should be extradited because the indictment's date variation is a technicality and the relator was in the demanding state when the crime occurred.
• Loper v. United States
  160 F.2d 293· 10th Cir.· 1947-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof is immaterial if it does not cause substantial prejudice to the defendant and that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Winters
  158 F.2d 674· 2d Cir.· 1946-12-31 ·cited 6×
  A defendant acquitted of a substantive crime can still be convicted of conspiracy to commit that crime if the substantive crime does not inherently require cooperation. Exhibits are admissible if properly authenticated and relevant. Judicial remarks about reaching a verdict do no
• Kirtsinger v. State
  99 Fla. 433· Fla.· 1930-03-04 ·cited 6×
  John Kirtsinger was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing rugs. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction despite a variance between the indictment (naming G. W. Ryder as owner) and proof (showing G. L. Ryder as actual owner), finding sufficient
• Erwin Sessions v. State
  82 Fla. 248· Fla.· 1921-08-15 ·cited 6×
  Erwin Sessions was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing John Watson in Hillsborough County in 1920. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Sessions' challenges regarding variance between the indictment's description of the wound locatio
• United States v. Aracri
  968 F.2d 1512· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy and tax fraud, but remanded for consideration of potential Giglio violations regarding undisclosed impeachment material.
• United States v. Brown
  912 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while evidence was sufficient for substantive offenses, it was insufficient to prove Brown's knowing participation in the overall conspiracy due to a lack of evidence showing his knowledge or dependency on the conspiracy's scope or existence.
• United States v. Morrow
  537 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish a single overall conspiracy, rejecting the appellants' argument of a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof.
• Gill Thomas v. State
  96 Fla. 243· Fla.· 1928-07-16 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court properly denied a motion for continuance based on newly discovered evidence. The court found no fatal variance between the indictment and proof regarding the location of death and t
• United States v. Turner
  975 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in denying mistrial or severance motions, nor in its jury instructions or sentencing calculations.
• United States v. Gwain Collins
  966 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Collins was a member of the charged conspiracy and that any variance between the indictment and the proof was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Starcevic
  956 F.2d 181· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the perjury convictions and that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment or mislead the jury.
• United States v. Schnabel
  939 F.2d 197· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing supplemental voir dire, admitting tax returns and secretary's testimony, denying a motion for acquittal based on variance, or giving a willful blindness instruction.