United States v. Baker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17525
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Baker was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) after a July 24, 2009 police stop and chase.
- Two baggies containing 25.2 grams of crack cocaine were found on the ground after Baker fled from Officers Aikman and Van Antwerp.
- Baker denied possession, and his fingerprints were not on the baggies.
- The government presented testimony from arresting officers, an expert, and Trena Keomala, who testified about Baker’s drug transactions.
- Keomala testified Baker previously supplied crack cocaine to her for resale, which was disputed; other portions of her testimony were admitted without objection.
- The district court admitted the disputed Rule 404(b) evidence with limiting instructions; Baker was sentenced to 360 months as a career offender after a bottom-of-range calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) evidence admissibility | Baker argues improper admission without proper foundation | Baker contends 404(b) evidence was prejudicial and irrelevant | No plain error; evidence passed the 404(b) four-part test and was not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for possession | Baker asserts no direct possession or fingerprint proof | Govt. presented direct and circumstantial evidence of possession and intent | Reasonable jury could find Baker possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute. |
| Reasonableness of the sentence | Sentence was unreasonably long and not adequately tied to § 3553(a) factors | Career offender designation properly applied; within-Guidelines sentence reasonable | Within-Guidelines sentence affirmed; presumption of reasonableness controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (relevance of prior drug transactions to knowledge/intent in drug cases)
- United States v. Curry, 79 F.3d 1489 (7th Cir. 1996) (prior drug dealings admissible to show intent in specific-issue crimes)
- United States v. Wilson, 31 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 1994) (evidence of prior drug transactions shows familiarity with cocaine business)
- United States v. Shackleford, 738 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1984) (four-part Rule 404(b) test for admissibility of other acts)
- United States v. Macedo, 406 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2005) (limiting instructions mitigate prejudice when 404(b) evidence is probative)