United States v. Fraenchot Banks
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3083
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Banks was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- Reversal sale of cocaine occurred December 16, 2010 in a St. Paul, Minnesota hotel; Banks accompanied Alvarado.
- Prior to reversal sale, on December 10, 2010 North Dakota agents searched Razmyslowski and Hulst residences, finding drugs and identifying Alvarado as a supplier.
- Minnesota officers organized the reversal sale based on informant tips; a video/audio record captured the exchange and arrest of Banks and co-conspirators.
- Indictment in North Dakota named Banks and co-conspirators; some co-conspirators pled guilty; alleged conspiracy ran from January 2009 to February 2011.
- Banks challenged venue, suppression of a 2000 marijuana possession conviction, and later argued about jury instructions on drug quantity; jury convicted Banks, who received a 240-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper venue in North Dakota | Banks argues venue was improper in ND. | Banks contends lack of alignment between acts and ND. | Venue proper; acts in ND supported conspiracy; evidence allowed reasonable jury to find overt act in ND. |
| Sufficiency of indictment | Indictment insufficient to bind Banks to pre-reversal conspiracy acts. | Indictment sufficient to inform charges and permit double jeopardy defense. | Indictment adequate; jury to decide membership; no error in denial. |
| Insufficient evidence of knowledge/intent | Evidence failed to show Banks knew of or joined conspiracy. | Evidence showed Banks' involvement and intent to join. | Sufficient evidence for knowledge and intent; reasonable jury could convict. |
| Admission of prior conviction under Rule 404(b) | Prior marijuana conviction unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant. | Conviction relevant to knowledge/intent given denial defense. | Court did not abuse discretion; probative value increased; limiting instruction reduced prejudice. |
| Jury instruction on drug quantity | Instructions insufficient to address pre-join quantity issue. | No error; quantity instruction properly submitted. | No plain error; instructions fairly submitted the issue and supported conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hull, 419 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2005) (venue proper where overt act in conspiracy occurred)
- United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2006) (venue and conspiracy act connections across districts)
- United States v. Watts, 950 F.2d 508 (8th Cir. 1991) (jury determination of conspiracy membership)
- United States v. Scott, 64 F.3d 377 (8th Cir. 1995) (slight evidence may prove participation in conspiracy)
- United States v. Surratt, 172 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 1999) (requires knowledge of existence of conspiracy for conviction)
- United States v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for unraised jury instruction issues)
- United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 404(b) admissibility balancing factors)
- Walzer v. St. Joseph State Hosp., 231 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 2000) (trial-level evidentiary rulings may change post-motion)