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. Barany
  884 F.2d 1255· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-07 ·cited 22×
  A variance between the indictment and proof at trial does not violate a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict if the jury's verdict was unanimous and the variance did not prejudice the defendant. Restitution orders must be based on judicially determined actual losses, not
• United States v. Lovett
  811 F.2d 979· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the mail fraud conviction, finding sufficient evidence of a scheme to defraud and use of the mail. However, it vacated the restitution order and remanded for further proceedings.
• United States v. Lipkis
  770 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the defendant's prior non-immunized statements provided an independent source for evidence, and that the indictment was not fatally varied from the proof presented at trial.
• United States v. Picketts
  655 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for making false declarations to a grand jury and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Mayo
  646 F.2d 369· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, double jeopardy claims, prosecutorial impropriety, prison transfer, voir dire, severance, jury instructions, or claims of ineffective counsel or self-incrimination
• United States v. Lindsey
  602 F.2d 785· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge's limiting instructions were sufficient to render harmless the error of submitting a single conspiracy theory when multiple conspiracies existed.
• United States v. LaRita Anne Bolzer
  556 F.2d 948· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the location of surveillance was not fatal because it did not affect the defendants' substantial rights, and that testimony from an ex-wife about clothing was admissible as it did not involve confidential m
• United States v. Frazier
  545 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the rented automobile, nor in denying the motion for acquittal based on variance or insufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Joyner
  539 F.2d 1162· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-29 ·cited 22×
  A misstatement of the date in an indictment for a continuing offense is not reversible error if the proof shows the acts were committed within the statute of limitations and prior to indictment, and the defense was not prejudiced. Evidence of concealment with intent to defraud is
• United States v. Sammie Lee Davis and Jasper Edward Baccus
  533 F.2d 921· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prosecution was barred by the five-year statute of limitations because the alleged conspiracy to make false statements ended with the submission of those statements, and subsequent acts were either not in furtherance of that specific conspiracy or constitu
• United States v. Maselli
  534 F.2d 1197· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-19 ·cited 22×
  A timely objection to a jury instruction presuming the truthfulness of every witness renders the instruction reversible error.
• United States v. Cohen
  518 F.2d 727· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the information was constitutionally sufficient to apprise the defendants of the charges against them and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain their convictions for conspiracy and securities fraud.
• United States v. Marin
  513 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a conviction for attempted possession of cocaine is permissible even if the indictment was for actual possession, and that the evidence supported the jury's finding of attempted possession.
• United States v. Arrabondo
  483 F.2d 980· 8th Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial was free of prejudicial error, affirming the defendant's convictions.
• United States v. Cowley
  452 F.2d 243· 10th Cir.· 1971-12-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the seizure of the firearm was lawful without a warrant or arrest, statements made before arrest were admissible, the variance between the indictment and evidence was not fatal, and the jury instructions were not coercive.
• United States v. Eldon Wayne McKUIN
  434 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the joinder of offenses and defendants was proper, the limitation on cross-examination was not prejudicial, and the witness's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Covington
  411 F.2d 1087· 4th Cir.· 1969-06-12 ·cited 22×
  The court holds that a substantial variance between the indictment and proof, while concerning, is permissible under existing authorities.
• GAY v. United States
  408 F.2d 923· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the evidence supported a conviction for transporting stolen goods across state lines (Count I), there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove fraudulent intent at the time the goods were obtained, thus reversing the conviction for obtaining good
• Nees v. Culbertson
  406 F.2d 621· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-28 ·cited 22×
• Paritem Singh Poonian v. United States
  294 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1961-08-24 ·cited 22×
  The majority opinion reversed a conviction for making false statements to the Treasury Department, finding a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof regarding the ownership of the income reported.
• United States v. Bagdasian
  291 F.2d 163· 4th Cir.· 1961-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged the offense of devising a scheme to defraud and using interstate wire facilities, and that the evidence supported the conviction.
• Davis v. United States
  279 F.2d 576· 4th Cir.· 1960-06-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that hypertechnical objections regarding statutory citations in the indictment, even if erroneous, do not vitiate the conviction if the defendant was not misled or prejudiced. The court also held that the evidence supported a conspiracy conviction despite acquittal
• Pool v. United States
  260 F.2d 57· 9th Cir.· 1958-10-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's instruction, which assumed a disputed fact, constituted harmless error because other instructions correctly submitted the factual issue to the jury and no objection was made at trial.
• United States v. Cioffi
  242 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1957-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the variance between the indictment and proof regarding the conspiracy timeline was not grounds for reversal as it did not prejudice the defendant, and the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on a coconspirator's guilty plea testimony.
• United States v. Lattimore
  215 F.2d 847· D.C. Cir.· 1954-07-08 ·cited 22×·via Variance From Indictment
• Goldbaum v. United States
  204 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1953-04-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction on count 13, and because sentences ran concurrently, review of other counts was unnecessary.
• Dorsey v. United States
  174 F.2d 899· 5th Cir.· 1949-06-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and that Dorsey's arrest and the subsequent search were lawful.
• United States v. Schwartz
  150 F.2d 627· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment's allegation of foreign commerce and the proof of interstate commerce was not fatal, and the jury instructions regarding accomplice testimony were adequate.
• United States v. Tuffanelli
  131 F.2d 890· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-09 ·cited 22×
  The court should reverse the judgment on substantive counts due to misjoinder of offenses.
• United States v. Beck
  118 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1941-03-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the evidence supported the conspiracy and mail fraud convictions, and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings or conduct.
• United States v. Lyman
  592 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for conspiracy was affirmed because any errors, including prosecutorial misconduct and issues with the indictment, were either abandoned, harmless, or did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
• The United States v. White
  451 F.2d 696· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-19 ·cited 21×
  The court held that there was no fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, that the statute applies to any false statement made in connection with a firearm acquisition regardless of who the actual purchaser is, and that the defendant validly waived his Miranda rights.
• Hunter v. State
  200 So. 2d 577· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-06-27 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a material variance between the bill of particulars and proof regarding the location of the offense did not occur, but the sentence imposed for a prior grand larceny conviction was illegal.
• United States v. McCORMICK
  309 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1962-10-12 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy and unlawful transportation of gambling devices, and that the search warrant was validly issued.
• United States v. Curry
  977 F.2d 1042· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the joinder of perjury counts with conspiracy counts was proper under Rule 8(b) and that the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Watts
  950 F.2d 508· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of a single conspiracy and that the convictions and sentences were not affected by any alleged errors.
• United States v. Regan
  940 F.2d 1134· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, finding no variance between the indictment and proof, sufficient evidence for distribution counts, proper jury instructions, and correct offense level calculation.
• United States v. Duke
  940 F.2d 1113· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that convictions for both continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy violate the double jeopardy clause, requiring one conviction to be vacated. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Jungles
  903 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's actions, including entering into an 'independent contractor' agreement with the intent to evade taxes, constituted affirmative acts sufficient for a tax evasion conviction. Any variance between the indictment's allegation of 'employer' and the
• United States v. Bowman
  783 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud and making false statements to federally insured banks, and that the district court did not err in denying a mistrial based on an alleged unproduced tape recording.
• United States v. Adams
  778 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that allowing the jury to convict based on misrepresentations about residence, when the indictment only charged misrepresentations about name, constructively amended the indictment, violating the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on charges present
• United States v. Maker
  751 F.2d 614· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 20×
  The Third Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a mail fraud indictment, holding that the government's appeal was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court found that the district court erred in determining that the indictment alleged two separate schemes t
• United States v. Bowers
  739 F.2d 1050· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy and substantive violations related to a scheme involving 'ringer' horses, and that various evidentiary and statutory challenges raised by the defendants lacked merit.
• United States v. Grover Lamar LEE
  695 F.2d 515· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of conspiracy and using a telephone to facilitate it, and that his arguments regarding insufficient evidence, multiple conspiracy, and double jeopardy were without merit.
• United States v. McRARY
  665 F.2d 674· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 20×·via Fatal Variance Between Indictment And Proof
• United States v. Scacchetti
  668 F.2d 643· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury charge, when considered as a whole, adequately instructed the jury on the elements of extortion under the Hobbs Act, including the requirement of intent and the victim's involvement in interstate commerce.
• United States v. Booty
  621 F.2d 1291· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Powell
  564 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a conspiracy to distribute heroin, and that amending the indictment's date and admitting evidence were not errors.
• United States v. Buzzard
  540 F.2d 1383· 10th Cir.· 1976-08-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the recorded conversation, instructing the jury, denying the double jeopardy claim, or finding sufficient evidence and jurisdiction.
• United States v. Cook
  461 F.2d 906· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's rulings regarding alleged conspiracy variances, co-conspirator testimony, and a violated stipulation, and that the trial judge's conduct was not prejudicial.