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 ex rel. John C. Berkery v. Rundle
  390 F.2d 599· 3d Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial is not prejudicial error, and an erroneous statement by the lower court regarding an admission was not sufficient to require reversal.
• Wright v. United States
  356 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1966-02-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy, interstate transportation, and concealment of stolen bonds, and that the trial court properly denied motions for acquittal.
• United States v. Holmes
  340 F.2d 23· 7th Cir.· 1964-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the conviction for receiving, concealing, and facilitating the sale of narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 174 was valid, and thus the judgment must be affirmed due to concurrent sentences.
• Caminos v. Territory of Hawaii
  191 F.2d 148· 9th Cir.· 1951-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the specifications of error did not involve the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, nor show absence of fair trial or due process.
• Phelps v. United States
  160 F.2d 626· 9th Cir.· 1947-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and that the evidence presented was adequate to support the conviction, disregarding minor technical defects that did not prejudice the defendant.
• Horsley v. United States
  160 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1947-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge may have confused the jury regarding the actual violation charged, leading to a reversal.
• Perry v. United States
  136 F.2d 109· 10th Cir.· 1943-05-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's allegation of the lease source and the proof was not fatal, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for mail fraud.
• Scarborough v. State
  82 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1921-10-22 ·cited 2×
  Warren Scarborough was convicted of forgery and uttering a forged check. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, though it upheld the indictment and the admissibility of the check into evidence.
• Howard v. State
  73 Fla. 694· Fla.· 1917-03-24 ·cited 2×
  Nathan Howard was indicted for assault with intent to murder using a shotgun loaded with leaden balls, but convicted of aggravated assault after evidence showed the gun was loaded with bird shot instead. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that bird shot and leaden balls
• Asberry Barnes v. State
  46 Fla. 96· Fla.· 1903-06-01 ·cited 2×
  Asberry Barnes was convicted of larceny for stealing money orders (pay checks) from the Florida East Coast Railway Company. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting arguments that the indictment was defective and that money orders could not be the subject of l
• United States v. Sutton
  642 F.2d 1001· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-03 ·cited 1×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the government failed to prove the existence of the RICO enterprise as alleged in the indictment, which described a multi-purpose unlawful business enterprise. Instead, the evidence only supported a narcotics distribution conspiracy. The dissent
• Andre v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-04
  The court held that the movant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and appellate, were meritless and denied the motion to vacate sentence.
• McGhee v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (Duval County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-30
  The court held that Petitioner's federal claims are unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, and fail on the merits, warranting denial of the habeas petition.
• Benitez v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-19 ·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit, as the record contradicted his allegations and his appellate counsel was not deficient for failing to raise weak arguments.
• United States v. Selwyn
  998 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that the prosecution failed to present evidence that the defendant lawfully came into possession of the package, a required element for embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 1709.
• United States v. Kermit A. Doucet
  994 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-16
  A constructive amendment to an indictment occurs when the jury is permitted to convict the defendant upon a factual basis that effectively modifies an essential element of the offense charged, requiring reversal.
• Wilson v. Lindler
  995 F.2d 1256· 4th Cir.· 1993-06-11
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's grant of the writ, finding no constitutional error regarding notice and that any error was invited or not prejudicial.
• United States v. Taren-Palma
  997 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-10
  The court held that admitting expert testimony regarding the defendant's firearm possession during a simple drug transaction was reversible error due to undue prejudice.
• United States v. Kimbel A. LeMAUX
  994 F.2d 684· 9th Cir.· 1993-05-28
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on the specific supervisees or predicate acts for a continuing criminal enterprise conviction, as the evidence was overwhelming and the alleged
• United States v. LEE
  991 F.2d 343· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-20
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine, and that the district court's deliberate ignorance jury instruction was properly given and did not violate due process.
• Barger v. State OF Ind.
  991 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-13
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by a conviction where the victim's exact age (eleven or twelve) was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as the state law and evidence supported conviction for a le
• United States v. Alvarado
  985 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-04
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for the charges, no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, no prejudice from nondisclosure of polygraph results, no impermissible variance, and no clear error in the sentencing enhancement.
• United States v. Ford
  986 F.2d 57· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that a variance in an indictment that goes to form, not substance, does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights if the defendant is adequately informed of the charges and protected against double jeopardy. The court also held that allowing the government to
• United States v. Valentine
  984 F.2d 906· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions to quash search warrants, sever offenses, admit expert testimony, or admit evidence of a smaller cocaine quantity, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Abelardo Padilla
  982 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-29
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a conspiracy and that any variance between the indictment and the proof was not prejudicial.
• Martin v. Kassulke
  970 F.2d 1539· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·via Variance From Indictment
  The majority opinion condoned trying a defendant on charges not made in the indictment, which is a violation of federal constitutional law.
• United States v. Roderic Carter
  969 F.2d 197· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-08
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant and prejudicial financial and tax return evidence against the defendant, which was not harmless error.
• United States v. Huntsman
  959 F.2d 1429· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-26
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment and granting judgment of acquittal, finding no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof presented at trial.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Associated Inv. Grp.
  631 F. App'x 276· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-27
  The court held that the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) is protected by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) from defendants' personal contract defenses, entitling the RTC to summary judgment on the notes. Ownership of the notes and partnership capacity were also resolved in favor of the RTC.
• United States v. Devine
  934 F.2d 1323· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-20
  The court held that the federal sentencing guidelines applied to the conspiracy conviction because the evidence supported a finding of a single, continuing conspiracy that extended beyond the guidelines' effective date. The court also affirmed Devine's failure to prove affirmativ
• United States v. Berry
  931 F.2d 671· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-29
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and firearm use in furtherance of drug trafficking. The court also found no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence p
• United States v. Flores
  887 F.2d 543· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-20
  The court held that a defendant cannot challenge a conviction for rescuing seized property based on technical violations of internal IRS procedures regarding the seizure's lawfulness, especially when the seizure was made by authorized agents and the defendant was not prejudiced.
• United States v. Glenn
  828 F.2d 863· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-10
  A variance between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof showing separate conspiracies prejudices a defendant if it affects substantial rights, but is harmless error if it does not.
• United States v. Schurr
  794 F.2d 903· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-10
  A rational jury could have found the $2,500 payment in 1979 to be part of the conspiracy, thus satisfying the statute of limitations, and therefore the convictions are reaffirmed.
• United States v. Austin
  774 F.2d 99· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-16
  The court held that curative jury instructions and striking prejudicial evidence remedied any potential unfairness from a variance between the indictment and proof, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Scharrer
  614 F. Supp. 234· S.D. Fla.· 1985-07-15
  The court held that the defendant's post-trial motions alleging insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
• Zaremba v. State
  452 So. 2d 1026· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-05 ·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  Zaremba, a loan officer, was convicted of six counts of mortgage fraud under Florida law for forging borrowers' names on loan documents and diverting loan proceeds through his own company to charge undisclosed broker fees. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient ev
• United States v. Daughtry
  639 F.2d 818· D.C. Cir.· 1981-02-12
  The House Post Office constitutes an 'authorized depository' under 18 U.S.C. § 1708, and the federal interest in the mail does not terminate upon an employee's lawful handling of it within the depository.
• United States v. Cantrell
  612 F.2d 509· 10th Cir.· 1980-01-07
• United States v. Guon
  442 F.2d 1021· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-19
  The court held that the variance between the indictment's description of a tax lien and the actual facts was harmless error, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Davis
  431 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1970-09-14
• Sherwood v. State
  221 So. 2d 154· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-04-15 ·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that there was no material variance between the charge and the proof, and the defendant was not prejudiced in his defense.
• Goodman v. United States
  362 F.2d 965· D.C. Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the trial court erred in allowing a jury instruction that converted a statement previously represented as exculpatory into an admission, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial regarding the Mallory issue.
• United States v. Gard
  344 F.2d 120· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-14
  The court held that the admission of evidence of payments made after the agreement date did not constitute a prejudicial variance requiring reversal, and that post-agreement statements and overheard conversations were admissible.
• United States v. Leonid Tankel
  331 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1964-04-27
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdicts were not fatally inconsistent, and there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Loyd Donald Durham
  308 F.2d 797· 6th Cir.· 1962-10-18
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal and in limiting the jury's consideration to evidence related to one still site.
• United States v. Schnoll
  142 F.2d 704· 7th Cir.· 1944-05-31
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for transferring rationed food without collecting required ration points, regardless of the appellant's precise dealer status.
• Shaddy v. United States
  139 F.2d 754· 10th Cir.· 1944-01-04
  The court held that there was no variance between the indictment and the proof, and the trial court's jury charge was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Agresti
  130 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-17
  The court held that the defendant could be convicted of concealing assets from a receiver, even if not formally adjudicated a bankrupt, and that the variance between the indictment and proof was immaterial.
• Bannerman v. State
  125 Fla. 459· Fla.· 1936-10-16
  This case reviews a conviction for manslaughter stemming from a fatal automobile accident. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the indictment or the evidence presented.