United States v. Darrius King
684 F. App'x 451
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- King was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846) and of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)) arising from a marijuana grow operation at Waters’s house.
- Government presented coconspirator Waters’s testimony that King and Waters formed a 50/50 partnership: King grew the plants and Waters handled distribution/sales.
- Firearms were found at the grow house; Government argued King had constructive possession by joint occupancy, access, and knowledge, and that the guns were used to protect the grow operation.
- King moved for a directed verdict after the Government rested but failed to renew the motion after trial verdict, so sufficiency review is for plain error.
- During jury deliberations, the court answered a question about Pinkerton liability for the § 924(c) count, telling the jury it was “required” to find King guilty if the predicate Pinkerton elements were proved; King argued this directed a guilty verdict.
- At trial Waters testified King had run a prior grow operation in Houston; King argued this was inadmissible prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) and was improperly elicited and used by the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (§ 846) | King: evidence insufficient to prove agreement, knowledge, and participation | Government: Waters’s testimony and other circumstantial evidence showed agreement and King’s role | Affirmed — record not devoid of evidence; jury could credit Waters’s testimony |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) firearm possession | King: insufficient proof of possession and that firearm furthered drug trafficking | Government: joint occupancy, access, knowledge, and evidence guns protected grow operation | Affirmed — constructive possession and furtherance supported by evidence |
| Jury instruction on Pinkerton liability for § 924(c) | King: court’s written reply saying jury was “required” to find guilty impermissibly directed verdict | Government: instruction mirrored settled Pinkerton law and spelled out both guilt and not-guilty conditions | Affirmed — instruction correctly stated law and did not coerce verdict |
| Admission/use of testimony about prior Houston grow operation | King: prior-act evidence inadmissible under Rule 404(b); Government improperly elicited and argued it | Government: testimony was intrinsic — explained how conspiracy formed and provided foundation for follow-up questioning and argument | Affirmed — testimony was intrinsic or, at worst, harmless; no plain error in elicitation/use |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (conspirator liability for substantive offenses committed in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980 (5th Cir.) (Pinkerton instruction and deemed-guilty language)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sufficiency claims)
- United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession via joint occupancy and access)
- United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2000) (possession must further drug trafficking offense)
- United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1991) (intrinsic evidence in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Rice, 607 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 2010) (intrinsic evidence and harmlessness analysis)
- United States v. Al-Kurna, 808 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir. 1987) (jury may reject defendant’s account and credit coconspirator testimony)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard requires error that is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights)