United States v. James McKnight
662 F. App'x 479
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- McKnight operated Starstruck Video in Conway, AR; undercover buys (July–Oct 2012) yielded packages later tested as AM-2201, UR-144, XLR-11 (some non-controlled).
- Sales were made from a back office/locked toolbox, not rung in, placed into black DVD cases; employees instructed to use DVD case as a signal for future purchases.
- Coconspirators (Mason, Burford, Taylor) testified that K2 was sold to be smoked to get high, that shipments were handled to avoid detection (USPS packaging, secret storage), and that defendants knew products were illegal.
- Police executed a search warrant (Oct 2012), seizing K2 packages, packaging materials, ledgers, invoices, and empty DVD cases; lab testing confirmed several controlled substances/analogues.
- At trial McKnight testified he sold the products as "incense"/"herbal Viagra," relied on supplier assurances and lab reports, and kept items under the counter for privacy/age reasons; jury rejected his testimony and convicted him of conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution.
- District court sentenced McKnight to time served, three years supervised release, and a $300 assessment; McKnight appealed arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge and conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowledge that products were controlled substances/analogues | Gov: Circumstantial evidence (secretive sales, coconspirator testimony, packaging, customers used to get high) shows general knowledge and knowledge of features making substances analogues | McKnight: He reasonably believed products were legal "incense"; used secrecy for privacy/age reasons; obtained lab reports/supplier assurances | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove McKnight knew he dealt in controlled substances or knew features rendering them analogues (McFadden standard applied) |
| Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute | Gov: Testimony from coconspirators and conduct shows agreement, knowledge, and intentional participation | McKnight: Denied agreement; claimed innocent business practices | Affirmed — testimony and conduct support conviction for conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant can be shown to have known a substance is an analogue by proving he knew features making it an analogue)
- United States v. Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; knowledge need not be exact identity)
- United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766 (8th Cir.) (knowledge is an element but exact identity of substance need not be proven)
- United States v. Qattoum, 826 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.) (discussing knowledge requirement under §841)
- United States v. Shaw, 751 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.) (elements required to prove conspiracy)