United States v. Anthony Smith
670 F. App'x 226
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Anthony Smith was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.
- Prosecution relied in part on text messages recovered from Smith’s phones; two law-enforcement witnesses (McClaran, Sherman PD; Holbert, ATF) testified about the meaning of drug-code jargon in those texts.
- Smith argued the agents, presented as lay witnesses, actually offered expert testimony about code words without being qualified or disclosed as experts; he objected to admission of that testimony.
- The district court admitted the agents’ testimony; Smith preserved a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge but not the objection to the admission (so plain-error review applied to that claim).
- Evidence at trial included testimony that Smith bought 48 grams he had not fully distributed before arrest, prior distributions exceeding 300 grams, and Holbert’s interpretation that Smith purchased 1,330 grams for resale.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding any error in McClaran’s testimony harmless and Holbert’s testimony admissible as lay opinion; it also held the evidence supported the 500-gram threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of agents' interpretations of drug-code jargon | Smith: Agents testified as experts about code words without qualification or disclosure | Government: Agents testified from personal perceptions and involvement in the investigation (lay opinion) | Any improper expert testimony by McClaran was harmless; Holbert’s interpretations were admissible as lay opinion; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence that offense involved ≥500 grams | Smith: Quantity finding relies on unreliable agent interpretations of texts | Government: Direct testimony of purchases/distributions and Holbert’s text-message construction supported quantity | Evidence sufficient as a matter of law to prove at least 500 grams; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing lay vs. expert testimony about intercepted communications)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.) (lay-opinion testimony based on perceptions of involvement in a case)
- United States v. Griffith, 118 F.3d 318 (5th Cir.) (expert-opinion considerations)
- United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (clarity required for basis of lay vs. expert testimony)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (harmless/ plain-error analysis)
- United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.) (sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Ramos-Garcia, 184 F.3d 463 (5th Cir.) (deference to jury resolution of conflicting interpretations)
- United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515 (5th Cir.) (evidence need not exclude every hypothesis but guilt)