Criminal Law

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on drug distribution and firearm charges stemming from seizure of drugs and guns located at home that defendant and unidentified woman were located at time of seizure, even though defendant asserted that he did not reside at said home or have any sort of possession of either drugs or firearms. Record contained sufficient evidence to support notion that defendant had constructive possession of both drugs and firearms where: (1) defendant’s cell phone was located at said home on two early morning occasions days before instant search; (2) both defendant and his cell phone were found at home on day of search; (3) certain large quantity of drugs were found in open view at time of search, so as to have allowed defendant easy access and power to control said drugs; (4) firearms were located near certain drugs; and (5) certain wiretapped conversations revealed that defendant had been seeking to acquire same type of drugs found in said home. Dist. Ct. also did not err in admitting expert evidence regarding code words used by defendant and others in wiretapped phone conversations, although Dist. Ct. erred in failing to clarify for jury when said expert was testifying as expert or fact witness. However, any error was harmless, where expert’s testimony was cumulative to other properly admitted testimony.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support guilty verdict on charge of witness retaliation, where record showed that: (1) eight days after individual testified against defendant at defendant’s sentencing hearing, defendant had words with said individual in County jail; (2) defendant waited until guards left area and then slammed individual’s head into concrete wall, causing said individual to convulse; and (3) defendant lied to guard about cause of individual’s injuries. While defendant argued that govt. failed to show that instant attack was motivated by individual’s testimony at sentencing hearing, record showed that defendant made remark to individual about individual’s status as govt. cooperating witness shortly before attack.

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. erred under Rule 404 in admitting evidence of small quantity of cocaine found in defendant’s bedroom, since such evidence constituted improper propensity evidence where, although govt. claimed that such evidence was admissible to establish defendant’s identity as participant of charged drug conspiracy, instant user quantity of drugs found in defendant’s bedroom 26 days after end of conspiracy did not serve govt.’s purpose, and govt. could offer no theory other than propensity to commit bad act to connect cocaine found in defendant’s bedroom to defendant’s identity as participant in drug conspiracy. In making its ruling, Ct. of Appeals determined that traditional 4-step approach used to determine admissibility of bad-act evidence should be abandoned in favor of relevancy test followed by Fed. Rules of Evidence. Instant error, though, was harmless given other evidence linking defendant to drug conspiracy. (Partial dissent filed.)

In prosecution on series of bank robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s participation in uncharged three restaurant robberies conducted shortly before charged bank robberies, where: (1) restaurant robberies were committed in same fashion that bank robberies were committed in that defendant in both charged and uncharged robberies rushed up to employees and demanded money while another individual who also was involved in restaurant/bank robberies, served as look-out; and (2) evidence of restaurant robberies was relevant to establish that defendant was one of two masked bank robbers in charged offenses. Moreover, other evidence from bank teller and girlfriend of defendant’s accomplice, as well as DNA evidence, linked defendant to charged bank robberies.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendants’ guilty verdicts on wire fraud charge stemming from scheme in which defendants obtained $250,000 above purchase price of home through use of false/misleading documents, and then shortly sold said house after they made undisclosed promises to give kickbacks to buyer. Record showed that one defendant submitted false statements to bank regarding her annual income and amount of money in her bank account, and other defendant failed to disclose that he played buyer and seller roles in said purchase of home. However, record failed to support Dist. Ct.’s finding that $600,000 loss attributed to different bank that financed second purchase of home was foreseeable to defendants, where there was no evidence indicating that defendants were aware that individual, who purchased said home at inflated price and had failed to make single loan payment, was using fictitious name/fraudulent means to acquire said property.

Defendant was not entitled to new trial on conspiracy to commit mail fraud and aggravated identity theft charges, even though defendant argued that she was improperly tried by anonymous jury. Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to alleged anonymous nature of jury, and defendant failed to show that jurors’ names were actually unknown to parties since: (1) Dist. Ct. indicated that he would not use actual names of jurors in open court to protect their privacy; (2) Dist. Ct. mentioned name of one juror during sidebar; and (3) response given by jurors during voir dire indicated that they were free to reveal private information about themselves.

Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant had breached his plea agreement on drug charge by failing to agree to amount of cocaine attributed to him in presentence report, and in finding that that it would not accept 204-month sentence provided in plea agreement, where Dist. Ct.’s action allowed govt. to subsequently file superseding indictment on essentially same charge that ultimately resulted in imposition of 300-month sentence after defendant entered second guilty plea. Defendant essentially suffered double jeopardy violation when Dist. Ct. withdrew defendant's first guilty plea through its improper application of Rule 11, and when he entered into second guilty plea on essentially same charge. Moreover, Dist. Ct. lacked authority to withdraw defendant’s first guilty plea even if he had breached some material term of plea agreement, and instead should have given defendant choice of either withdrawing guilty plea or, if defendant still wished to plead guilty, to proceed on plea with knowledge that his sentence would be greater than 204 months.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on drug conspiracy charge, where defendant was arrested after police found $311,000 in hidden compartment of defendant’s truck. While defendant argued that govt. failed to establish that he knew $311,000 was connected to drug sales or was willfully blind to such fact, record contained sufficient evidence to support guilty verdict where defendant: (1) admitted he transported said money in hidden compartment of his truck; (2) arranged with known drug dealer to pick up said money; (3) built lead-lined compartment in truck that expert explained was typically used to transport drug money; and (4) lied to police about ownership of money. Also, record contained sufficient evidence to support issuance of ostrich instruction, where record contained evidence that defendant had reason to question origin of money he was transporting. Fact that instruction did not include express statement that deliberate avoidance needs to be more than mere negligence did not require different result.