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. Cohen
  544 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for filing a materially false Offer in Compromise was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a prior conviction for impeachment or a relevant letter.
• H. M. (Mike) Myrick and Vernon Evans Bergman v. United States
  332 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1963-12-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that no reversible error of law occurred, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Brilliant v. United States
  297 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1962-01-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's findings regarding the defendant's making, publishing, and intent concerning the false statement, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to provide grand jury testimony.
• Newell Chilton Sells v. United States
  262 F.2d 815· 10th Cir.· 1958-12-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for false statements and contempt, and that procedural and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• Herbert v. Imholte
  226 F.2d 585· 8th Cir.· 1955-11-01 ·cited 32×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that the offense of aiding and abetting tax evasion is complete upon the filing of the false return, and evidence of acts committed prior to the statute of limitations period is admissible to prove intent and the commission of the offense.
• Cooper v. The City of Miami
  160 Fla. 656· Fla.· 1948-07-02 ·cited 32×·via Variance Between Charge And Proof
  The court held that the evidence presented did not sustain the charge of keeping a gambling device, and thus the conviction was improper.
• Reddick v. State
  25 Fla. 112· Fla.· 1889-01-01 ·cited 32×
  Frank Reddick was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree for the murder of Henry Churchill and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, finding that the trial court committed reversible e
• United States v. Womack
  654 F.2d 1034· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the statute's delegation of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to define explosives was constitutional, the definition was not unconstitutionally vague, and the defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Rubiett Jenkins
  779 F.2d 606· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions for appellants Quarterman, Prather, and McTeer, but reversed Jenkins' conviction due to insufficient evidence. The court also found no prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof o
• United States v. BEN M. Hogan Co., Inc.
  769 F.2d 1293· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court reversed and remanded appellant's conviction for conspiracy to restrain trade due to an improper jury instruction regarding interstate commerce.
• United States v. Muelbl
  739 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. McCRARY
  699 F.2d 1308· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on variance, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Nunez
  668 F.2d 1116· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege on a collateral matter, in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a witness's mention of protective custody, or in refusing to dismiss the indictment based on grand jury p
• United States v. Stewart Clinical Lab., Inc.
  652 F.2d 804· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 30×
• United States v. Davis
  592 F.2d 1325· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 30×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for embezzlement exceeding $100, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant legally sane.
• United States v. West
  549 F.2d 545· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for mail and wire fraud, and that the indictment was valid.
• United States v. Ricco
  549 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a single conspiracy conviction and that any variance did not affect the substantial rights of the accused. Claims of prejudicial delay, double jeopardy, severance, and prosecutorial misconduct were also rejected.
• United States v. LAM LEK Chong
  544 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence presented at trial established a single conspiracy encompassing the Hong Kong venture and the May 30 delivery, and that any variance from proof of a separate January 30 conspiracy did not prejudice the defendants. The court also found no prosecuto
• United States v. Wiley
  534 F.2d 659· 6th Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 30×
  The court denied the government's petition for rehearing, finding that while some arguments were supported by the record, others were still improper.
• United States v. Marrapese
  486 F.2d 918· 2d Cir.· 1973-10-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that the admission of tape recordings and transcripts was proper.
• United States v. Barbato
  471 F.2d 918· 1st Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged a federal nexus, that claims of duplicity and multiplicity were waived, and that the evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Nasse
  432 F.2d 1293· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 30×·via Variance From Indictment
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions and that most searches were lawful or any errors were harmless. It affirmed the convictions of the appellants.
• United States v. Crowder
  346 F.2d 1· 6th Cir.· 1964-12-17 ·cited 30×
  A variance between the specific serial numbers of stolen money orders listed in an indictment and the serial numbers proven at trial is not fatal if it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights, particularly if the defendant's defense was not misled by the variance and p
• Pependrea v. United States
  275 F.2d 325· 9th Cir.· 1960-03-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's charge of 'force and violence' and the proof of 'intimidation' was harmless error, and that confessions obtained from the appellant were voluntary and properly admitted.
• United States v. Lekacos
  151 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1945-08-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they must find a single conspiracy, the joinder of multiple conspiracies in one indictment was proper and did not prejudice the appellants, and their convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Clark
  732 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession of diazepam, and that the defendants' other claims of error, including variance, improper joinder, and evidentiary rulings, were without merit.
• Haakinson v. United States
  238 F.2d 775· 8th Cir.· 1956-11-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for making a false statement to the Federal Housing Administration, and that the defendant received a fair trial despite the joinder of multiple counts and defendants.
• United States v. Harrison
  942 F.2d 751· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a variance existed between the indictment and the proof, it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. However, the court found the government failed to prove the defendant's specific conspiracy extended past the effective date of the Sentencing
• United States v. Barry
  938 F.2d 1327· D.C. Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction for cocaine possession but remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to adequately explain the basis for an obstruction of justice enhancement and did not specify the applicable guidelines range.
• United States v. Wright
  932 F.2d 868· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the jury instructions adequately addressed the variance between the indictment and the evidence of multiple conspiracies, and that the joinder of defendants and offenses, as well as the denial of suppression motions,
• United States v. Alga Hope, Jr.
  901 F.2d 1013· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the indictment properly charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by conspiring to embezzle federal funds, and that the diverted funds retained their federal character.
• United States v. Rios
  842 F.2d 868· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence supported a single conspiracy to import cocaine and that the admitted co-conspirator statements were made in furtherance of that conspiracy.
• United States v. Rivera
  837 F.2d 906· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 28×·via Variance From Indictment
  The admission of evidence of uncharged drug offenses to prove the continuing series element of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge was improper because the indictment failed to provide adequate notice of such proof, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be
• United States v. Springer
  831 F.2d 781· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.
• United States v. Simmons
  725 F.2d 641· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the government does not need to prove a defendant's knowledge of the specific quantity of marijuana involved to secure a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, as the quantity provision relates to sentencing enhancement. The court also
• United States v. Miller
  715 F.2d 1360· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 28×
  A defendant cannot be convicted of mail fraud based on a scheme different from the one pleaded in the indictment and proven at trial.
• United States v. Aimone
  715 F.2d 822· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge's ex parte communications with a juror, while generally undesirable, were permissible given defense counsel's consent and strategic involvement, and that the jury's verdict was valid despite an emotional outburst and an initial dissenting vote
• United States v. Goldfarb
  643 F.2d 422· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-05 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that violations of Nevada Gaming Commission regulations, when implemented by statute and used in conjunction with interstate commerce, can constitute 'unlawful activity' under the Travel Act.
• United States v. Bottom
  638 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-02 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict despite a variance from the indictment, the jury verdicts were not legally inconsistent, and the trial court's Allen charge was not reversible error.
• United States v. Durades
  607 F.2d 818· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the government's proof regarding the existence of a single conspiracy infringed the defendant's venue rights.
• United States v. Arlt
  567 F.2d 1295· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 28×
  The second appeal is dismissed as not properly before the court, and even if it were, the appellant's contentions are without merit.
• United States v. Goble
  512 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for a single conspiracy and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions. Specific claims of variance and insufficient evidence for interstate transportation were also reject
• United States v. Moser
  509 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendants' arguments regarding variance between the indictment and proof, and insufficiency of evidence, were without merit, affirming their convictions.
• United States v. Eskow
  422 F.2d 1060· 2d Cir.· 1970-02-27 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish fraudulent intent and a common scheme to defraud, and that the trial court properly handled evidentiary issues.
• Suhl v. United States
  390 F.2d 547· 9th Cir.· 1968-02-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying motions for acquittal.
• McINTOSH v. United States
  341 F.2d 448· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant possessed the stolen tractor, transported it in interstate commerce, and knew it was stolen.
• Bryan v. State
  19 Fla. 864· Fla.· 1883-01-01 ·cited 28×
  William Bryan was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Robert Moore in Lafayette County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction despite Bryan's challenges regarding the specific location of the mortal wound alleged in the indictment versus the actual wou
• United States v. Arloha Mae Pinto
  838 F.2d 426· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, co-conspirator hearsay was properly admitted, there was no fatal variance, severance was not required, the statute of limitations had not expired, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Mitchell
  777 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for continuance, as defendants failed to show prejudice or that the denial obstructed justice. The court also found the RICO enterprise was adequately defined and proven.
• United States v. Love
  535 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a juror's innocent conversation with a defendant, and a subsequent discussion of that conversation among jurors where the innocence was clarified, did not create prejudice warranting a mistrial. The court also held that a jury instruction on mail fraud includi