United States v. James Hunt, Jr.
694 F. App'x 291
5th Cir.2017Background
- James R. Hunt, Jr. convicted by jury of two counts of possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and two counts of possession/sale of a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)); acquitted on a § 924(c) count alleging possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
- Hunt moved to sever the drug charges from the firearm charges; the district court denied the motion.
- The government introduced (1) testimony and an audiotape of a December 1, 2015 telephone call between Hunt and confidential informant Nekeba Lee about a cocaine sale, and (2) testimony from David Lovett that the firearm at issue was stolen.
- Hunt objected to admission of the telephone call and Lovett’s testimony (arguing relevance and Rule 404(b) concerns) and renewed the severance claim on appeal.
- The district court gave limiting jury instructions regarding the challenged evidence; an officer also testified (without objection) that the firearm was stolen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing to sever drug and firearms charges | Joinder prejudiced Hunt; jury could not compartmentalize evidence and analyze charges independently | Joinder was appropriate or any prejudice cured by limiting instructions; relatedness of some charges (same date/buyer) | Denial affirmed; Hunt failed to show clear, specific, compelling prejudice and instructions cured any risk |
| Whether district court abused discretion admitting telephone call and Lovett testimony | Telephone call was unduly prejudicial; Lovett’s testimony implicated other-act evidence requiring exclusion under Rule 404(b) | Call was corroborative and reiterative of other unobjected evidence; Lovett did not attribute a separate bad act to Hunt and testimony was relevant to Count 4; limiting instructions minimized prejudice | Admission affirmed (even if error, it was harmless due to corroborating unobjected evidence and officer testimony; limiting instructions given) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmons, 374 F.3d 313 (5th Cir.) (standard for showing prejudice from joinder)
- United States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171 (5th Cir.) (limiting instructions can cure joinder prejudice)
- United States v. Stephens, 571 F.3d 401 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error analysis for admission of evidence)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. en banc) (significance of limiting jury instructions to reduce undue prejudice)
- United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409 (5th Cir.) (relevance of stolen-status evidence to § 924(c)-type allegations)