United States v. Jazzy Devante Johnson
664 F. App'x 785
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jazzy Johnson was convicted by a jury of: possession with intent to distribute cocaine and flakka (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)).
- At trial the government introduced (1) extrinsic evidence of a prior crack cocaine possession conviction under Rule 404(b) and (2) expert testimony from a law-enforcement detective that the quantities/packaging were consistent with distribution rather than personal use.
- Johnson moved for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 at close of the government’s case and at close of all evidence; he preserved sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims on appeal.
- On appeal Johnson argued the prior-conviction evidence and the detective’s expert opinion were improperly admitted, rendering Count 1 unsupported; he also argued Count 3 depended on an invalid Count 1 and challenged Count 2 on interstate nexus grounds (he conceded binding precedent against that Count 2 challenge).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed sufficiency de novo, Rule 404(b) admission under Edouard standards, and expert-admission/Rule 403 decisions for abuse of discretion under Frazier and related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior conviction under Rule 404(b) | Johnson: prior conviction’s prejudicial effect substantially outweighed probative value | Government: prior conviction probative of motive, intent, knowledge | Court: admission proper — probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Admissibility of detective’s expert opinion | Johnson: expert was not properly vetted; testimony should have been excluded | Government: detective qualified by experience; trial court performed gatekeeping and allowed cross-examination | Court: no abuse of discretion; district court adequately performed gatekeeping and admitted testimony |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to distribute (Count 1) | Johnson: even if he possessed drugs, evidence insufficient to prove distribution intent without the challenged evidence | Government: totality of evidence (including 404(b) evidence and expert testimony) supported jury finding of intent to distribute | Court: evidence sufficient; jury reasonably found intent to distribute |
| Count 3 — firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking | Johnson: Count 3 depends on invalid Count 1 so must fail | Government: Count 1 valid; Johnson knowingly possessed firearm during drug offense | Court: because Count 1 stands, Count 3 is supported and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Williams, 390 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (accepting reasonable inferences supporting government)
- United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir.) (jury may choose among reasonable interpretations)
- United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.) (government need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (tests for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.) (en banc) (expert-admissibility gatekeeping requirements under Rule 702)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (review of Rule 403 rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct.) (flexible reliability inquiry for expert testimony)
- United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir.) (elements required to prove § 924(c) offense)
- United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir.) (credibility questions reserved for jury)
- United States v. Thompson, 473 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir.) (credibility and sufficiency standards)