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

• Jackson v. United States
  359 F.2d 260· D.C. Cir.· 1966-04-05 ·cited 58×
  The conviction should not stand because the indictment charged robbery by 'force and violence and against resistance and by putting in fear,' but the proof and jury instructions concerned robbery by 'sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching,' a different statutory basis.
• United States v. Giacomo Reina
  242 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-19 ·cited 58×
  The court held that Valachi's conviction must be reversed due to the statute of limitations, while the convictions of Reina, Quartiero, Pagano, and Moccio were affirmed.
• United States v. Schoenhut
  576 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the government had presented sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict for three of the five counts of an indictment against a bank officer, vacating the district court's judgment of acquittal on those counts.
• Baker v. United States
  393 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-04 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants and offenses was permissible, the denial of motions for severance and speedy trial was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the discrepancies in the indictment and admission of a co-d
• United States v. DE Peri
  778 F.2d 963· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, jury selection, or prosecutorial comments.
• United States v. Keck
  773 F.2d 759· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the indictment was not defective, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting transcripts with speaker identities, or admitting certain conversations, and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. Cook
  586 F.2d 572· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conviction, and the jury instructions and prosecutorial arguments did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Crocker
  568 F.2d 1049· 3d Cir.· 1977-11-29 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, not charged in the indictment and not discussed in the grand jury testimony, amounted to a constructive amendment of the indictment, requiring a new trial.
• Carter v. United States
  333 F.2d 354· 10th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the statute was a constitutional delegation of authority and that the jury instruction was not coercive.
• Epstein v. United States
  174 F.2d 754· 6th Cir.· 1949-04-11 ·cited 56×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that there was a fatal variance between the indictment's charge of defrauding by selling at excessive prices and the government's later theory of breach of trust by directors receiving secret profits. The trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment of acquitt
• United States v. Raphael L. Gonzalez
  661 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the admission of diazapam evidence was not a prejudicial variance or a violation of Rule 404(b), and the denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was proper.
• United States v. Sindona
  636 F.2d 792· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that there was no impermissible variance between the indictment and the proof, and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Freeman
  514 F.2d 1184· 10th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, prior wrongful acts testimony was admissible, unsigned letters were properly admitted, hearsay statements fell under exceptions, witness conclusions were permissible, and the trial court did not err in lim
• United States v. Accardi
  342 F.2d 697· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-10 ·cited 54×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the admission of evidence, the jury instructions, and the imposition of consecutive sentences were proper.
• United States v. Spatuzza
  331 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1964-04-24 ·cited 54×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and proof, that identification and possession evidence was sufficient, and that the trial court did not err in denying motions for mistrial or in its jury instructions and rulings regarding the Jencks Act.
• Elwert v. United States
  231 F.2d 928· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-22 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the evidence supported the conviction for tax evasion, and that the jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were adequate.
• Malatkofski v. United States
  179 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1950-01-25 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the indictments were sufficient, the denial of severance motions was proper, and the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• Lott McNealy and Daniel Roulhac v. The State
  17 Fla. 198· Fla.· 1879-01-01 ·cited 54×
  McNealy and Roulhac were convicted of breaking and entering a gin-house and stealing cotton. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, rejecting their challenges to the trial court's denial of a change of venue, denial of a continuance, allowance of both counts in the
• United States v. Paiz
  905 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-06 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for a single conspiracy, knowing participation, and applying the Pinkerton doctrine. It also upheld the use of the 'ostrich' jury instruction and rejected double jeopardy claims.
• United States v. Alphonso Brooks
  697 F.2d 517· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court's sua sponte continuance was properly excluded under the Speedy Trial Act and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of a single conspiracy.
• United States v. Rodgers
  624 F.2d 1303· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions for mail fraud and making false statements, finding sufficient evidence of a single scheme to defraud, individual participation, and that mailings were in furtherance of the scheme.
• United States v. Jackson
  627 F.2d 1198· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of Jackson's prior manslaughter conviction for impeachment, nor in admitting evidence of his voluntary return of money, and that the trial judge did not exhibit bias.
• United States v. Peterson
  549 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to link Payne to the 1975 conspiracy and reversed his conviction, while affirming Peterson's conviction due to sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Russano
  257 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-30 ·cited 52×
  The court held that a prejudicial variance existed between the indictment charging a single, continuous conspiracy and the proof which established two separate conspiracies, one in 1952 and another in 1955-56, with a significant gap in between.
• Branch v. Estelle
  631 F.2d 1229· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on any of his claims, affirming the denial of his petition.
• United States v. Enstam
  622 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to impute knowledge of a money laundering conspiracy to Holley, thus his conviction should be reversed.
• Norris v. United States
  152 F.2d 808· 5th Cir.· 1946-01-15 ·cited 51×
  The court held that an indictment for robbery using the statutory language is sufficient even if it omits explicit allegations of violence or fear, provided the defendants were otherwise informed of the charge and their substantial rights were not prejudiced.
• United States v. Perholtz
  842 F.2d 343· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the indictment properly charged an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO and that the evidence was sufficient to establish a single racketeering enterprise.
• United States v. Porter
  821 F.2d 968· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The dissenting judge would reverse all convictions and grant new trials due to cumulative errors in admitting evidence and improperly joining defendants.
• United States v. Becaficio Saenz DeLEON
  641 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, and that DeLeon's other contentions lacked merit.
• United States v. Silverman
  449 F.2d 1341· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-26 ·cited 50×
  A juror's inability to read or write English does not require reversal of a conviction unless actual prejudice is shown, and a defendant lacks standing to object to the seizure of documents filed with a court if their own rights were not violated by the search itself.
• Lurton Lewis Heflin, Jr. v. United States
  223 F.2d 371· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 49×
  The court held that multiple counts under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (b), and (d) do not constitute separate offenses, but rather different maximum punishments for a single offense. Convictions under counts 1 and 2 were reversed due to improper sentencing.
• Park Tucker and Tolbert Tucker v. State
  100 Fla. 1440· Fla.· 1930-12-09 ·cited 49×
  Park Tucker and Tolbert Tucker were convicted of cattle larceny under Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed their convictions, rejecting arguments that the indictment was defective and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  933 F.2d 417· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the indictment was not multiplicitous, severance was not required, the display of cocaine was proper, expert testimony was admissible, and there was sufficient evidence for the convictions.
• United States v. Manzella
  782 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 48×
  A conspiracy to commit an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) can serve as a predicate act for a RICO violation, and midtrial publicity does not warrant reversal if actual prejudice is not shown.
• United States v. Harrison Odell Leach
  613 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that joinder of defendants was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination.
• United States v. Boyd
  595 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 48×
• United States v. Tercero
  580 F.2d 312· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-14 ·cited 48×
  The court held that two separate indictments for marijuana conspiracies, despite different alleged dates and locations, constituted a single conspiracy for double jeopardy purposes when the totality of circumstances demonstrated a single overall operation.
• United States v. Figueroa
  666 F.2d 1375· 11th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for attempted aircraft piracy was constructively amended from the indictment because the government proved threats and intimidation, not the charged force and violence, and that the conviction should be reduced to the lesser included
• United States v. de Fillo
  257 F.2d 835· 2d Cir.· 1958-07-29 ·cited 47×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof, the reception of evidence, the court's charge, and the fairness of the trial did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Castro
  776 F.2d 1118· 3d Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment and the evidence did not violate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause, the evidence was sufficient to convict Garcia-Remedio and Suarez, and the trial court's jury instructions adequately presented Castro's entrapment def
• United States v. RAS
  713 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence established a single conspiracy, joinder was proper, and the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Cina
  699 F.2d 853· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that amending the indictment to change the conspiracy's commencement date was permissible as time was not an essential element and the defendant showed no prejudice, but reversing the mail fraud conviction because count four failed to allege an essential element of
• United States v. Kaiser
  660 F.2d 724· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the destruction of a handwritten draft report by an agent did not violate the Jencks Act, but that the admission of certain exhibits without the agent's testimony was an abuse of discretion. It also held that evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy convi
• United States v. Tilton
  610 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, properly admitted co-conspirator statements under the Apollo standard, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and violating the Travel Act.
• United States v. Thelbert C. Elders
  569 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-01 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence of extortion affecting interstate commerce was overwhelming, even if some specific payments did not meet the threshold.
• United States v. Serlin
  538 F.2d 737· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove a single scheme to defraud under the mail fraud statute, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings by the trial court were not erroneous.
• United States v. Bryan
  483 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a defendant convicted as an aider and abettor cannot be convicted if the named principal in the indictment has been acquitted of the substantive offense.
• United States v. Knight
  451 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was not the fruit of an illegal search and seizure, the indictment was sufficient, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted documents and gave jury instructions.
• United States v. Solon Glaze
  313 F.2d 757· 2d Cir.· 1963-02-01 ·cited 46×
  A variance between the bill of particulars and the proof at trial is not grounds for reversal unless the defendant demonstrates substantial prejudice.