United States v. Apicelli
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18308
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2013 police, prompted by a tip from town employee Robert Bain, found two clusters of marijuana plants in woods ~200–300 meters from 201 Mason Road. A motion-activated camera later recorded a person in a red backpack and tan shorts tending the plants.
- Investigation connected 201 Mason Road to Peter Apicelli: he was renting the residence, two cars registered to him were observed there, and mail and a debit card in his name were found in the home.
- A search warrant for 201 Mason Road was executed Sept. 17, 2013; police found additional growing marijuana, drying/packaged marijuana, and the red backpack and tan shorts like those on the surveillance footage. Apicelli was arrested thereafter.
- Apicelli was convicted by a jury of manufacturing marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and sentenced to 12 months and one day. He appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence linking the marijuana to him, (2) errors in suppression rulings (including failure to grant a Franks hearing), (3) Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment delay claims, and (4) that certain trial testimony warranted mistrial.
- The First Circuit reviewed sufficiency de novo (crediting circumstantial evidence and constructive-possession doctrine), Franks threshold and suppression rulings for clear error, STA and Sixth Amendment issues for mixed standards, and mistrial rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Apicelli's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (constructive possession) | Evidence did not prove the plants in woods or residence belonged to him; no witness identified him on video | Circumstantial evidence (residence rental, cars, mail/debit card, clothing matching video found in adult bedroom, proximity) supports constructive possession | Affirmed: a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Apicelli possessed the marijuana |
| Franks/hearing on warrant affidavit | Sergeant Payer omitted/misstated material facts about Bain (motive to lie, town-employee status) and thus a Franks hearing was required | Even if issues existed, Bain’s tip/ID were not necessary to probable cause because officers independently found the grow and linked Apicelli to the house | Affirmed denial of Franks hearing: Bain-related info not necessary to the probable-cause finding |
| Speedy Trial Act / Sixth Amendment delay | District court improperly excluded time for ends-of-justice continuances and discovery delays; delay merits dismissal | Continuances were requested/necessitated by defense motions and to allow preparation; delays were excludable; defendant largely caused or asserted motions | Affirmed: STA periods were properly excluded; Sixth Amendment claim fails (delay attributable to defendant; no prejudice shown) |
| Motions for mistrial (inadmissible ID/hearsay and bad-act testimony) | Testimony implying Bain identified Apicelli on video and officer’s reference to other contraband (mushroom grow) were prejudicial and required mistrial | Statements were brief/ambiguous; court gave prompt curative instructions; evidence of contraband in house was relevant to ownership/possession | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion—curative instructions cured any prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Negrón-Sostre, 790 F.3d 295 (1st Cir.) (standard for de novo sufficiency review)
- United States v. García-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124 (1st Cir.) (constructive-possession may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standards for showing false statements or omissions in warrant affidavits and entitlement to an evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Hastings, 847 F.2d 920 (1st Cir.) (framework for assessing Speedy Trial Act dismissal and government culpability)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-part Sixth Amendment speedy trial balancing test)
- United States v. Rigaud, 684 F.3d 169 (1st Cir.) (probable-cause standard for residence searches)
- United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d 6 (1st Cir.) (curative instructions ordinarily sufficient; mistrial is rare)