United States v. Curtis Hays, II
671 F. App'x 626
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Curtis Hays, a UPS driver, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), multiple counts of theft of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 924(l)), receipt/possession of stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(j) and § 924(a)(2)), and theft/possession of interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659).
- Prosecution relied largely on circumstantial evidence tying Hays to a theft ring: he was one of three drivers working at the facility on every theft date and served as either primary or overflow driver for destinations of stolen packages.
- Stolen-package evidence was recovered from co-defendant White’s home, car, and storage unit; phone records showed calls between Hays and White on each theft date and cell-tower data placed them near each other.
- Text messages among alleged co-conspirators referenced Hays’s first name as the source of stolen goods; trial testimony identified a UPS employee as that source.
- The district court admitted evidence of two uncharged thefts (treated as within the charged conspiracy) and admitted out-of-court statements of alleged co-conspirators as non-hearsay under the co-conspirator exception.
- Hays appealed arguing insufficient evidence, improper admission of evidence of uncharged thefts (Rule 404(b)), and improper admission of co-conspirator out-of-court statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Government: circumstantial evidence (work schedule, phone/tower data, texts, recovered goods) proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Hays: evidence insufficient to link him to thefts/conspiracy | Affirmed — viewed in government’s favor, circumstantial chain permitted convictions |
| Applicability of buyer‑seller rule to conspiracy charge | Hays: alleged buyer‑seller relationship precludes conspiracy conviction | Government: charged conspiracy was not a distribution conspiracy; buyer‑seller rule inapplicable and not raised below | Affirmed — buyer‑seller rule does not apply; jury instructions correctly defined conspiracy |
| Admission of evidence of two uncharged thefts (Rule 404(b)) | Hays: prior/other-theft evidence admitted improperly as propensity evidence | Government: those thefts occurred during and were part of the charged conspiracy | Affirmed — evidence fell within temporal scope of the conspiracy, not Rule 404(b) extrinsic acts |
| Admission of out‑of‑court co‑conspirator statements | Hays: hearsay; admission improper because conspiracy not sufficiently proven | Government: proffer established conspiracy; statements made in course/furtherance of conspiracy | Affirmed — district court properly found sufficient proffer; statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Webster, 623 F.3d 901 (de novo review of sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Toro‑Barboza, 673 F.3d 1136 (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction if logical chain exists)
- United States v. Lapier, 796 F.3d 1090 (buyer‑seller rule discussed in conspiracy context)
- United States v. Moe, 781 F.3d 1120 (distinguishing buyer‑seller from conspiracy; instruction issues)
- United States v. Rodman, 776 F.3d 638 (conspiracy definitions and buyer‑seller rule applicability)
- United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d 1050 (acts within temporal scope of conspiracy not governed by Rule 404(b))
- United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (standards for admitting co‑conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E))
AFFIRMED.