Criminal Law

In prosecution on two counts of drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting evidence of defendant's participation in other, uncharged drug transactions in violation of Rule 404(b) where basis of admission was claim that said evidence was admissible to establish defendant's intent to unlawfully distribute drugs at issue in charged offense. Instant drug distribution charge was only general intent crime, and defendant never placed his intent at issue in instant case, such that admission of other bad acts was probative only of defendant's propensity to commit crimes. Error, though, was harmless given various recordings of each controlled purchase, and given defendant's telephone call admitting his role in said purchases.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to combined 360-month term of incarceration on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography where certain enhancement was based on testimony from defendant's niece that defendant had sexually abused her for 10-year period beginning at age four. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in preventing defendant from cross-examining niece about recent rape allegation she had made against another family member where defendant had no concrete information to support his contention that niece was lying about said rape allegation, and where other evidence supported niece's allegations against defendant. Also, Dist. Ct. could impose enhancement under section 2G2.2(b)(4) of USSG for possession of material portraying sadistic conduct even though defendant claimed that he never specifically sought images of this nature.

In prosecution on child pornography and distribution charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress confession to possession of child pornography that was made prior to issuance of Miranda warnings and took place in private office within college police station. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was not in custody at time of questioning where defendant agreed to accompany police officers to said station and was not physically touched or restrained during questioning, and where defendant was told he was not under arrest and was allowed to leave unescorted after giving statement.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's guilty verdict on money laundering conspiracy charge where record showed that proceeds from drug sales made by certain conspirators were used to purchase real estate in names of other individuals. Moreover, while defendants argued that instant indictment was time-barred because execution of last warranty deed on subject property was filed nine months beyond applicable five-year limitations period, execution of subsequent quit claim deed on same property provided necessary act within limitations period to support instant prosecution. However, record failed to support conviction on money laundering charge under 18 USC section 1957 where purchase of $8,000 property was under $10,000 minimum for said charge. Fact that same property was subsequently sold for more than $10,000 was immaterial.

In prosecution on drug distribution and conspiracy charges based on controlled drug purchase, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting references to defendant's gang membership made by various govt. witnesses. Said evidence was admissible to help explain terms used by confidential informant and third-party when setting up controlled purchase, and said evidence was relevant to demonstrate that defendant had more than buyer-seller relationship with drug supplier. Moreover, any error was harmless given fact that defendant was identified as participant at site of drug purchase.