United States v. Howard
687 F.3d 13
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Officers executed an arrest warrant for Howard at 193 Nottingham Street in Springfield, MA, via a large, armed, multi-officer operation.
- Knowles, a long-time resident, signed a consent-to-search waiver after Howard was located and removed from the house.
- A handgun, crack cocaine, scales, bags, and a burning cigarette with Howard’s DNA were found in the home, including drugs floating in a toilet tank.
- Howard moved to suppress the gun, drugs, and related evidence on grounds of lack of probable cause, warrant, and coercive consent; the district court denied.
- A federal grand jury charged Howard with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime; after trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to over thirteen years; Howard appeals on suppression timing, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression denial proper regarding the timing of Knowles’ consent? | Howard argues search began before Knowles consent. | Howard asserts pre-consent search, making evidence tainted. | No clear error; consent preceded search; suppression affirmed. |
| Were the joint possession and aiding-and-abetting instructions properly given? | Howard contends insufficient evidence of joint possession/abetment. | Government relied on Knowles’ and Treadwell’s criminal history and Howard’s presence. | Yes; instructions appropriate based on total evidence. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict Howard of possessing the gun and drugs? | Insufficient direct possession; no DNA tying gun/drugs to Howard. | Circumstantial evidence supports constructive possession. | Yes; rational juror could find constructive possession beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgacarakos, 988 F.2d 1289 (1st Cir. 1993) (defines joint and constructive possession concepts)
- United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2009) (constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Castro-Davis, 612 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2010) (affirmative findings on possession under proper instructions)
- United States v. Carrasco, 257 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (joint possession appropriate with defense theory raising third-party involvement)
- United States v. Oberle, 136 F.3d 1414 (10th Cir. 1998) (aiding-and-abetting instruction proper when evidence shows accomplice involvement)