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. Oakley G. Smith
  523 F.2d 771· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-17 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for making false statements within the jurisdiction of HEW, and that the indictment was not vague or subject to fatal variance.
• United States v. Richerson
  833 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial variance between the indictment and proof on the conspiracy count, no reversible error in the mail fraud instruction post-McNally, and no plain error in the tax evasion instructions.
• United States v. Brewer
  630 F.2d 795· 10th Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 75×
  The court held that no fatal variance occurred, co-conspirator testimony was properly admitted, physical evidence was admissible, and other contentions lacked merit.
• United States v. Soto
  591 F.2d 1091· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 75×
  The court held that while evidence was sufficient for possession convictions, it was insufficient for importation convictions for some appellants and all convictions for two others. Motions to suppress were properly denied, and marijuana samples were admissible.
• United States v. Allied Stevedoring Corp.
  241 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 75×
• The United States v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1183· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict or the trial court's rulings on issues of conspiracy variance, interstate commerce, sentencing, evidence admissibility, prosecutorial misconduct, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Irwin
  654 F.2d 671· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a duty to disclose for the concealment charges (Counts 3, 5, 7), thus reversing those convictions and the related conspiracy charge (Count 1). The court affirmed the conviction for making a false statement (Count 2) and t
• United States v. Parnell
  581 F.2d 1374· 10th Cir.· 1978-07-24 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities and conspiracy, and that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, nor error in the denia
• United States v. Luttetus Perry
  550 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-22 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling jury voir dire, admitting rebuttal testimony, or limiting cross-examination, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy.
• Zimberg v. United States
  142 F.2d 132· 1st Cir.· 1944-04-24 ·cited 74×
  The court held that minor variances between indictment allegations and proof do not warrant reversal, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Kern
  657 F.2d 985· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 73×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Burchinal, Kern, and Gerard for conspiracy and Travel Act violations, but remanded for reduction of costs assessed against Kern.
• United States v. Stanford Champion
  813 F.2d 1154· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of a single conspiracy, and that the appellants were not prejudiced by any variance between the indictment and the proof.
• United States v. Williams
  798 F.2d 1024· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 72×
  The court reversed Debbie Williams' conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed convictions for David Williams and Wayne Russell.
• United States v. Mastelotto
  717 F.2d 1238· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 72×
  The court held that while the indictment was not duplicitous, the jury instructions were flawed because they did not require unanimous agreement on the specific scheme to defraud, thus requiring reversal.
• United States v. Warner
  690 F.2d 545· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 72×
  The court held that a fatal variance existed between the indictment charging a single conspiracy and the proof showing multiple conspiracies, requiring reversal of the conspiracy conviction. The court also found that the prejudicial spillover from the conspiracy evidence required
• United States v. Gross
  416 F.2d 1205· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the statute of limitations did not bar prosecution, the evidence was admissible and sufficient to support the convictions, and the defendants' other assignments of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Marable
  574 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Marable of heroin conspiracy and that the trial court did not err in denying severance or excluding testimony.
• United States v. Ashley
  555 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 70×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that limitations on cross-examination were harmless, evidence was sufficient, hearsay at sentencing was permissible, and jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Lester
  749 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1503's omnibus clause covers non-coercive witness tampering, and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy convictions under both § 1503 and § 1510.
• United States v. Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.
  550 F.2d 261· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous assignments of error regarding the indictment's sufficiency, grand jury proceedings, disclosure of evidence, witness immunity, continuance requests, and federal jurisdiction over false claims submitt
• Rocha v. United States
  288 F.2d 545· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 68×
  The court held that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction over aliens found within their borders for crimes committed abroad that harm U.S. sovereignty, but reversed the conspiracy conviction due to a variance between the single conspiracy charged and the proof of multiple separ
• United States v. Kojo Sababu
  891 F.2d 1308· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-21 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy and Travel Act charges.
• United States v. Kramer
  711 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the warrantless search of garbage left outside a home for collection does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that a trespass onto adjacent land to seize such garbage also does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it does not infringe a privacy interest. The
• United States v. Bates
  600 F.2d 505· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 66×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the admission of evidence concerning co-conspirators' prior acts was proper, the jury instructions were adequate, and the refusal to allow defense counsel to testify was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Allen
  554 F.2d 398· 10th Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel, as the defendant's mental condition was known or should have been known by counsel prior to trial. The court also affirmed convictions on some count
• United States v. Ramirez
  482 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1973-07-25 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed convictions for drug offenses on Counts One and Two, but reversed Wilson Ramirez's conviction on Count Three for carrying a firearm unlawfully, finding insufficient evidence and improper jury instructions.
• United States v. Garcia-Rosa
  876 F.2d 209· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 64×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. However, it found that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain extrinsic act evidence.
• United States v. Shannon N. Mahar (85-1411)
  801 F.2d 1477· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 64×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and mail fraud, but vacated convictions on two substantive counts due to insufficient evidence.
• United States v. Hathaway
  798 F.2d 902· 6th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 64×
  The court held that out-of-court statements offered to prove falsity or neither truth nor falsity are not hearsay, business records are admissible under Rule 803(6) even if foundation is laid by an agent, and evidence of personal use of corporate funds is relevant to a scheme to
• United States v. Solomon Weiss
  752 F.2d 777· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the RICO and mail fraud convictions were unconstitutional due to a constructive amendment of the indictment, where the defendant was convicted of a scheme to create a corporate cash fund, not the scheme to extract bribes and convert corporate funds as charged.
• United States v. Bennie Ray Winship
  724 F.2d 1116· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-30 ·cited 64×
  The court held that convictions for two separate conspiracy counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the evidence indicated a single conspiracy to distribute multiple drugs.
• United States v. Cirillo
  468 F.2d 1233· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-06 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single, ongoing conspiracy, and that the defendant's awareness of specific shipments was not required for conviction.
• United States v. Arbelaez
  719 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single conspiracy and that the admission of coconspirator statements and the denial of severance motions were proper.
• United States v. Hyman Harvey Klein
  247 F.2d 908· 2d Cir.· 1957-09-03 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the indictment's general charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding tax collection was legally sufficient, and the defendants could not claim prejudice from the prosecution's shift in emphasis after their success on specific evasion counts.
• United States v. Christos Potamitis
  739 F.2d 784· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 62×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the evidence supported a single conspiracy charge, grand jury testimony was admissible due to witness unavailability caused by a defendant, severance was not required, and venue was proper.
• United States v. Beeler
  587 F.2d 340· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the proof presented at trial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Thomas
  586 F.2d 123· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and using a communication facility, and that the voice identification testimony was proper.
• United States v. Smolar
  557 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 62×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that a material variance occurred when the jury instructions on Count 11 changed the theory of the charged offense from selling worthless securities to a breach of fiduciary duty, requiring vacation of convictions on that count. Other convictions were affirmed.
• Ottomano v. United States
  468 F.2d 269· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-11 ·cited 62×
  An acquittal on a conspiracy charge does not preclude a conviction on a substantive offense if the acquittal was not based on a finding of fact essential to the substantive charge. A pending motion to vacate a sentence can create a risk of self-incrimination, preserving the Fifth
• United States v. Landry
  257 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1958-07-30 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on entrapment were erroneous and prejudicial, requiring a new trial for those counts. It also held that proof of ownership of narcotics, without more, is insufficient to establish possession for conviction under statutory pr
• United States v. Morris
  700 F.2d 427· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 60×
  The court held that variances between the indictment dates and proof, evidence of other wrongs, a defendant's statement, and jury instructions did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Ylda
  653 F.2d 912· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-14 ·cited 60×
  The court held that an improper jury instruction, though it broadened the elements of the offense charged, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not permit the jury to convict the defendant based on those extraneous elements.
• United States v. Ledesma
  632 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-25 ·cited 60×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that while the trial court's 'no sidebar' rule potentially violated Fed.R.Evid. 103(c), the prosecutor's conduct did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial, and the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convictions on Counts I and II, but not Count III.
• United States v. Schrenzel
  462 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 60×
  The court should have remanded the matter to the trial court for failure to disclose derogatory information in the presentence report to the defendant.
• Smith v. State
  29 Fla. 408· Fla.· 1892-01-01 ·cited 60×·via Variance From Indictment
  Henry C. Smith was convicted of forging a school warrant by altering its amount from $3 to $30. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that school warrants are proper subjects of forgery statutes and that circumstantial evidence of Smith's guilt was
• United States v. Pierce
  893 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when private parties, acting on their own initiative and policy, open a suspicious package, and subsequent government searches do not exceed the scope of the private search. The court also held that a comp
• United States v. Grapp
  653 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to sever, in its evidentiary rulings, or in refusing to instruct on the alibi defense, and that prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to reversible error.
• United States v. Johnson
  585 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the 'complicity' of bank officers does not negate the intent required to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1014, and that evidence of two separate closings was sufficient to support a jury finding of two conspiracies.
• United States v. Bursten
  453 F.2d 605· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-28 ·cited 58×
• Stewart v. United States
  395 F.2d 484· 8th Cir.· 1968-05-22 ·cited 58×
  The court held that correcting a clerical error in the date of an indictment does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, and refusing a misleading jury instruction is not error.