United States v. Finch
630 F.3d 1057
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Police responded to a burglary call at 611 East 6th Street; officers found 105 small bags of crack cocaine in a plastic bag behind a closet door in the northwest bedroom, along with a scale, bullets, and mail to Finch.
- Vincent Steele testified he rented the house and Finch moved in Febru ary 2009, sleeping in the northwest bedroom; Steele denied owning the drugs.
- A federal grand jury indicted Finch for possession with intent to distribute 5+ grams of crack cocaine; Finch pled not guilty.
- The jury found Finch guilty and addressed a specific finding that he possessed at least 5 grams; at sentencing, the district court adopted that quantity finding and sentenced Finch to 78 months’ imprisonment plus 5 years’ supervised release.
- On appeal, Finch challenges (i) the sufficiency of the evidence on possession with intent to distribute, (ii) the admissibility of expert testimony on drug quantity, and (iii) retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for possession with intent to distribute | Finch argues the evidence does not prove possession with intent | Finch contends lack of dominion and intent | Evidence supports constructive possession and intent to distribute |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on quantity | Cowan's opinion about 0.76 g consumed was unsupported | Testimony was admissible under Rule 702 and based on experience | Admission of Cowan's testimony was not an abuse of discretion |
| Retroactive application of Fair Sentencing Act | Entitlement to resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act | Not retroactive; general savings statute does not apply | Foreclosed by Brewer; penalties applied as of crime date |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hayes, 391 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2004) (strict standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing evidentiary inferences)
- United States v. McClellon, 578 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2009) (two elements: knowing possession and intent to distribute; packaging as probative)
- United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2002) (constructive possession via dominion over premises)
- United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2008) (presence in room where drugs found supports possession)
- United States v. Barrow, 287 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2002) (presence of packaging materials as evidence of distribution intent)
- United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 1997) (factors for inferring intent to distribute; includes scale)
- United States v. Dawson, 128 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 1997) (factors for inferring intent to distribute; includes scale)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 581 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2009) (expert-qualification and reliability considerations)
- United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for admission of expert testimony; abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (Fair Sentencing Act not retroactive; savings statute applies)