United States v. Henry
848 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2017Background
- Police stopped Christopher Henry after he fled from an unmarked but identifiable police car near a neighborhood memorial; officers chased and arrested him for trespassing after he entered a fenced yard.
- At booking, a search of Henry’s clothing produced a cell phone, $830 in cash, and approximately three grams of crack cocaine in 21 individually packaged rocks found in his shorts; guns were found nearby tied to a co-defendant.
- Police obtained and executed a warrant to search Henry’s cell phone; the search produced coded text messages the government said referenced drug sales.
- Henry was indicted for possession with intent to distribute crack and for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to suppress the phone texts as lacking probable cause.
- At trial the court admitted Henry’s 2012 drug-distribution conviction under Rule 404(b) for intent/modus operandi, allowed a police officer to interpret texts and opine that packaging was consistent with distribution, and refused Henry’s requested lesser-included instruction for simple possession.
- Henry was convicted of the drug offense (acquitted on the firearm charge) and appealed challenging suppression, admission of prior conviction, expert testimony, and the jury instruction; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Henry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of cell-phone search warrant / suppression | Warrant affidavit lacked probable cause for phone texts | District court alternatively relied on Leon good-faith; gov't contends search lawful | Affirmed — Henry waived challenge to good-faith exception by failing to address it on appeal; court did not decide probable cause |
| Admission of prior drug conviction (Rule 404(b) / Rule 403) | Prior conviction was improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial | Admissible to prove intent/knowledge; limiting instruction mitigates prejudice | Affirmed — admission for intent was within district court’s discretion and not outweighed by prejudice |
| Expert officer testimony (text interpretation & intent) | Officer impermissibly opined on Henry’s intent and speculated on text meanings within jurors’ ken | Officer qualified; may explain drug trade jargon and predicate facts; did not state defendant’s mental state | Affirmed — testimony explained predicate facts and jargon; did not violate Rule 704(b); cross-examination and limiting instruction mitigated risk |
| Failure to instruct on lesser included offense (simple possession) | Court should have given instruction; defense requested it | Evidence did not permit rational jury finding for simple possession; defendant failed to preserve objection | Affirmed — reviewed for plain error; no reasonable probability outcome would differ given the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212 (prior drug dealing admissible to prove intent)
- United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130 (two-part test for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Peña-Santo, 809 F.3d 686 (experts may testify to predicate facts relevant to intent)
- United States v. Rosado-Pérez, 605 F.3d 48 (law enforcement may explain drug trade jargon)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (consideration of alternative proof and Rule 403 probative value)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing)