883 F.3d 1062
8th Cir.2018Background
- In April 2013 police surveilled an apartment (5911A Highland Ave.) linked to a drug organization run by Joseph and Thomas Rander; an informant reported a kilogram of heroin was being distributed there.
- Officers observed Casey Peebles drive to the building, enter, leave holding a bulky object, then depart in a Land Rover; officers stopped the vehicle and found Leah Douglas concealing 247.3 grams of heroin on her person.
- The informant testified he saw Rander deliver heroin to the male who entered the apartment and later identified Peebles in court; Douglas testified she was Peebles’s girlfriend and often held drugs for him.
- Peebles was charged and convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute ≥100 grams of heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and possession with intent to distribute ≥100 grams of heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- District court denied Peebles’s motion for judgment of acquittal; he was sentenced to concurrent 120-month terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Gov: informant, Douglas, and officers’ observations establish agreement, membership, and participation | Peebles: evidence insufficient to prove he joined or participated in conspiracy | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, evidence sufficient for conspiracy conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to distribute | Gov: physical receipt/fronting of ~¼ kg heroin and Douglas’s testimony support constructive possession and intent | Peebles: lacked possession/intent to distribute | Affirmed — quantity and evidence support constructive possession and intent to distribute |
| Admission of Rander’s out-of-court statements (Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)) | Gov: statements were coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of conspiracy | Peebles: no proof he was a member; statements were idle chatter | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; statements were in furtherance and admissible |
| Expert testimony on drug-trafficking modus operandi | Gov: officer’s long experience supports admissibility to explain courier behavior | Peebles: testimony was improper drug-courier profiling and reliability was not independently assessed | Affirmed — officer’s experience made testimony reliable; if profile, harmless error given Douglas’s direct testimony |
| Limitation on cross-exam re: officers’ past misconduct (Rule 608(b)) | Peebles: should have been allowed to question officers about 2006 World Series scandal to impeach credibility | Gov: probative value limited and cumulative; risk of prejudice/delay | Affirmed — district court acted within discretion; exclusion would not have significantly altered jury’s impression |
| Impeachment by prior conviction | Peebles: admission of his 2014 burglary conviction for impeachment was erroneous | Gov: Peebles opened the door by introducing the conviction on direct exam | Affirmed — cannot contest on appeal after preemptive introduction by defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whirlwind Soldier, 499 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements of conspiracy)
- United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090 (8th Cir. 2016) (possession with intent to distribute standard)
- United States v. Johnson, 18 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 1994) (constructive possession principles)
- United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2004) (quantity as evidence of intent to distribute)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (preemptive admission of prior conviction bars appellate challenge)
- United States v. Young, 753 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing coconspirator statement rulings)
- United States v. Jeanetta, 533 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2008) (modus operandi expert testimony in drug cases)
- United States v. Beck, 557 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 608(b) cross-examination limits and Confrontation Clause analysis)