United States v. Huggans
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17124
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Huggans was convicted by bench trial of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; sentenced to life under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) and 851.
- Superseding indictment (Dec 20, 2007) charged Count I: conspiracy to distribute cocaine (2000–Dec 20, 2007) and Count II: attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (Mar–Apr 2007); both involved more than five kilograms.
- Pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, for a bill of particulars, and severance were denied; Huggans waived a jury trial.
- DEA sting linked Huggans to a conspiracy headed by Sais; Stiles provided cocaine to Huggans for wholesale quantities (approx. 600 kilograms) over months, with a 2007 meet at a hotel where money was counted on recording devices.
- April 12, 2007 exchange: Huggans brought ~$329,320 to the hotel, met with Rice, and was arrested; $10,680 short of the $340,000 price for twenty kilograms of cocaine.
- District court denied motions for new trial and equitably tolling under § 851(e); the government sought life sentence based on two prior Missouri felony drug convictions; the sentence was reviewed and affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency for conspiracy and attempt | Huggans argues indictment lacked specific co-conspirators, times, and places | Huggans contends insufficient specificity violated notice | Indictment provided fair notice with defined time frame and drug type; not deficient |
| Bill of particulars denied | Huggans claims need for details to prepare defense | Government already disclosed substantial information; no prejudice shown | No abuse of discretion; no actual surprise or prejudice |
| Severance of counts | Government used joint trial to bolster conviction; risk of prejudice | Evidence would be admissible in separate trials; no undue prejudice | No abuse of discretion; joinder proper given overlapping evidence and Rule 404 data |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and attempt | Evidence insufficient to prove knowing participation or substantial step | Evidence shows large-scale drug transactions and steps toward purchase | Sufficient evidence for both conspiracy and attempt; rational jury could convict |
| Equitable tolling under § 851(e) and due process | § 851(e) tolling should be available; potential due process concerns | Prior decisions foreclose tolling; no due process violation | Equitable tolling not applicable; § 851(e) constitutional as applied; Prior controls |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Peterson, 867 F.2d 1110 (8th Cir.1989) (indictment sufficiency—time frame and drug type provide notice)
- United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (Supreme Court 2007) (an indictment need not allege a specific overt act for attempted offenses)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (legal terms of art can sustain notice when the offense is defined by statute)
- United States v. Helmel, 769 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir.1985) (timeframe may be delineated without curing an invalid indictment when necessary)
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962) (requiring specificity in certain prosecutions where statute lacks general notice)