United States v. Davis
636 F.3d 1281
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Davis was stopped in Kansas during a traffic stop of a rental car; cocaine was found in a bag in the car.
- The government notified Davis under 21 U.S.C. § 851 of two Indiana prior convictions to enhance punishment; one after the arrest did not qualify, the other qualified but had the wrong case number.
- Davis was convicted on drug offenses and sentenced to a 240-month mandatory minimum concurrent with an Indiana sentence.
- Before trial, Davis moved to exclude Indiana arrest evidence under Rule 404(b); the district court denied and admitted the evidence.
- At trial, the district court admitted 404(b) evidence of a later Indiana arrest to prove motive/intent; Davis appeals suppression, § 851 notice, and 404(b) ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression denial correct? | Davis contends there was no reasonable suspicion beyond the traffic stop and no valid consent. | The government argues reasonable suspicion supported detainment and consent to search. | Yes; reasonable suspicion supported detainment and consent was voluntary. |
| Was the § 851 information adequate for notice of enhancement? | Davis argues the incorrect case number deprived him of proper notice. | The government contends clerical/harmless error and sufficient notice overall. | No reversible error; plain error not shown prejudice. |
| Was 404(b) evidence properly admitted? | Evidence was irrelevant/prejudicial and lacked proper limiting instruction. | Evidence showed motive/intent and was substantially probative. | Yes; admissible under 404(b) with proper purpose and limiting instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez-Lerma v. United States, 14 F.3d 1479 (10th Cir. 1994) (information integrity suffices for notice; clerical errors harmless in light of notice)
- LaBonte, United States v., 520 U.S. 751 (1997) (statutory requirements of § 851; non-jurisdictional error rules)
- Hood, United States v., 615 F.3d 1293 (10th Cir. 2010) (information defects may be corrected; prejudice analysis governs plain error review)
- Willis, United States v., 102 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 1996) (notice in § 851 info; opportunity to challenge convictions)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (4-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility; relevancy and prejudice considerations)
- Zamora, United States v., 222 F.3d 756 (10th Cir. 2000) ( Rule 404(b) requires similar acts and proximity in time; four-factor analysis)