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. Bryan
  896 F.2d 68· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that James Bryan was subjected to double jeopardy on the conspiracy charge due to a prior indictment for the same conspiracy, but affirmed the convictions of all appellants on other counts.
• United States v. Hanson
  835 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government need not prove the seized substance was pure cocaine, but rather that it was a mixture containing cocaine, to satisfy the statutory weight requirement for drug offenses.
• United States v. Donsky
  825 F.2d 746· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 4×
  A district court may dismiss a facially valid indictment after the government's opening statement only if the prosecution makes a clear and deliberate concession that must necessarily prevent a conviction, and only after the prosecution has had a full opportunity to correct any e
• United States v. Rodriguez
  803 F.2d 318· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 4×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the seditious conspiracy statute does not violate the treason clause, the defendant was not selectively prosecuted, the evidence was properly admitted, and the jury instructions were correct.
• United States v. Perry
  746 F.2d 713· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises, thus lacking standing to challenge the admission of evidence, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Gatewood
  733 F.2d 1390· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the mail fraud convictions, as the defendant knowingly submitted false and fraudulent documents to the insurance company.
• United States v. Gaultier
  727 F.2d 711· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 4×
  A variance between the indictment and proof is not fatal if it does not affect the substantial rights of the accused, and the trial court's limiting instructions were sufficient to prevent prejudice.
• United States v. Drury
  687 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-15 ·cited 4×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for mail fraud was not erroneous, as the evidence supported a scheme to defraud clients by breaching fiduciary duties through undisclosed kickbacks, even if insurance companies were not defrauded.
• United States v. Beeler
  648 F.2d 1103· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was ample evidence to support the conviction and that the appellant was not denied a fair trial.
• United States v. Scanlon
  640 F.2d 144· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial did not constitute an impermissible variance from the indictment, prosecutorial misconduct did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Brown
  578 F.2d 1280· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government need only prove specific intent to commit the fraudulent act, not specific knowledge that the instrument sold was a security, and that mailings of payments in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme can extend the statute of limitations.
• United States v. Smith
  572 F.2d 1089· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the transfer of the market to a corporation was a sham to avoid disqualification, affirming the owner's conviction, but reversed the conviction of the wife as the indictment's core charge of operating during a disqualification period was not proven against her
• Hagy v. State
  347 So. 2d 773· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-06-21 ·cited 4×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  Affirmed conviction for larceny where appellant was charged with stealing cash but proof showed stolen checks were negotiated through her account, as no variance objection was preserved at trial and checks constitute the same property interest as cash for larceny purposes.
• United States v. Reece
  547 F.2d 432· 8th Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possessing, forging, and uttering stolen federal checks, but insufficient to prove the state checks were stolen from the mail.
• United States v. Shield
  515 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-05 ·cited 4×
  A variance between the indictment and the proof regarding the victim's identity is not grounds for reversal if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights, such as preventing a proper defense, causing unfair surprise, or exposing to double jeopardy.
• United States v. Kamber
  458 F.2d 918· 7th Cir.· 1971-11-19 ·cited 4×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for making a false statement to the Selective Service was valid, rejecting all his grounds for appeal.
• United States v. Cleo Kennedy
  442 F.2d 444· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's finding that the victim was transported for the purpose of prostitution and that the trip originated as alleged.
• United States v. Mann
  432 F.2d 53· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the quantity of heroin sold was not prejudicial, and that the arraignment and jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Soles
  401 F.2d 521· 6th Cir.· 1968-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that charging multiple conspiracies as a single conspiracy under one count constitutes reversible error due to variance and improper joinder, except for defendants involved in all conspiracies.
• Jones v. United States
  377 F.2d 742· 8th Cir.· 1967-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that proof of possession of unstamped narcotics, coupled with the statutory presumption, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for unlawful purchase, even if the evidence presented primarily showed sales.
• Gunzburg v. United States
  297 F.2d 829· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of conviction for concealing assets and that a variance between the indictment and proof did not prejudice the appellant's substantial rights.
• United States v. Amedeo
  277 F.2d 375· 3d Cir.· 1960-03-28 ·cited 4×
  A variance between the indictment and proof, where the indictment charged a conspiracy with named individuals but the proof showed a conspiracy with unnamed persons, was not reversible error because it did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
• Gifford v. United States
  261 F.2d 825· 5th Cir.· 1958-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of a larger scheme was admissible and that venue was proper, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Kuntz
  259 F.2d 871· 2d Cir.· 1958-10-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an employee is responsible for reporting all income, including gratuities, and can only claim credit for taxes actually withheld by the employer.
• Harris v. United States
  140 F.2d 567· 4th Cir.· 1944-02-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and sufficient evidence sustained the jury's finding that the defendant caused the mails to be used in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
• United States v. Fleming
  134 F.2d 776· 2d Cir.· 1943-03-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in finding the appellant guilty of aiding and abetting a violation of the Motor Carrier Act, as sufficient evidence supported guilty knowledge.
• Crosky v. The State of Frorida
  46 Fla. 122· Fla.· 1903-06-01 ·cited 4×
  Jacob Crosky was convicted of breaking and entering a store with intent to steal property alleged to belong to W.N. Woods. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, finding a fatal variance between the indictment and evidence because the State failed to prove the stolen
• United States v. Chandler
  376 F.3d 1303· 11th Cir.· 2004-07-19 ·cited 3×
  The government charged four defendants with conspiracy to commit mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371 for their alleged participation in a scheme to redeem stolen McDonald's promotional game stamps. The indictment alleged that Jerome Jacobson, the security director for the company ma
• Elza P. Padgett and Morris Miller v. United States
  283 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1960-10-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that admitting statements of a co-conspirator made outside the appellants' presence was not error, and that the evidence did not show a fatal variance between the indictment and proof.
• Hurst v. State
  118 Fla. 877· Fla.· 1935-03-23 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the arson convictions of Norman Hurst and Harry Pool, rejecting their argument that the indictment required proof that the dwelling house actually burned as a result of the defendants' actions. The court held that under the arson statute, proof
• United States v. Jirard Kincherlow
  88 F.4th 897· 11th Cir.· 2023-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced a minor into prostitution, and that the jury instructions and indictment variance did not prejudice the defendant
• United States v. Innamorati
  996 F.2d 456· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed most convictions but reversed one possession conviction due to insufficient evidence, remanding for resentencing. The court also addressed the admissibility of grand jury testimony.
• United States v. Hamilton
  992 F.2d 1126· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the firearm convictions, the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes, and the sentencing enhancements were inapplicable under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
• United States v. Smith
  995 F.2d 662· 7th Cir.· 1993-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or denial of severance motions.
• United States v. Pedro Martinez (91-1908) & Va. Escamilla (91-2131)
  981 F.2d 867· 6th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, prosecutorial argument, indictment sufficiency, evidence variance, sufficiency of evidence, admission of prior bad acts, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Jackson
  978 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1992-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that presentence reports are not discoverable under the Jencks Act, but due process requires disclosure of exculpatory material within them after in camera review. The court also held that interstate transportation is jurisdictional for federal kidnapping charges a
• United States v. Gaye Flood
  965 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction for conspiracy and fraud but vacated the restitution order, remanding for resentencing to correct the restitution allocation.
• United States v. Barr
  963 F.2d 641· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant could not invoke the 'exculpatory no' doctrine for false statements made in pursuit of government employment, but vacated the sentence due to insufficient notice of the court's intent to depart from sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Olson
  925 F.2d 1170· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 2×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show prejudice, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of aiding and abetting mail fraud.
• United States v. Rosin
  892 F.2d 649· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the term 'moneys' in the indictment was sufficient to encompass the conversion of checks, thus there was no variance or amendment of the indictment.
• United States v. Lench
  806 F.2d 1443· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that concealing documents subpoenaed by a grand jury, even with modified return dates, constitutes obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. McLEAN-Davis
  795 F.2d 957· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Middle District of Florida was a proper venue for the Travel Act charge because sufficient contacts existed to establish venue, and there was no fundamental variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Perry
  740 F.2d 854· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Richardson
  694 F.2d 251· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 2×
  An indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is not insufficient for failing to specify the instrumentality of interstate commerce from which goods were stolen, and a defendant charged solely with possession of stolen goods cannot claim a variance if evidence suggests he also stole them.
• United States v. Cerrito
  612 F.2d 588· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial did not materially vary from the indictment, the jury instructions were proper and did not amend the indictment, and the government's pre-indictment delay did not violate the defendant's due process rights.
• United States v. Tibbs
  600 F.2d 19· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-19 ·cited 2×
• Moore v. United States
  512 F.2d 1255· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for possessing a prohibited firearm was valid, despite a variance between the indictment and the proof, because the weapon qualified as an 'any other weapon' under federal law and the variance was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Bruckman
  466 F.2d 754· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant had a continuing duty to report his change in military status to the draft board, and that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for knowingly and willfully failing to do so.
• United States v. Roberts
  466 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Selective Service Board's mailing of notices to the registrant's last known address constituted sufficient notice, even if not actually received, and that the termination of postponement and refusal to reopen classification were proper.
• United States v. Buble
  440 F.2d 405· 9th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's amendment of the indictment to correct obvious filing date errors was permissible and did not violate the defendant's double jeopardy rights.