United States v. Jonathan Wright
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 859
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Police responded to a burglar alarm at Wright’s rented home, found the front door ajar with pry marks, smelled raw marijuana, and observed two bags of suspected marijuana in an open dresser drawer during a protective sweep.
- Officers exited, obtained a state search warrant based on those observations, then ran a narcotics dog through the house (after closing the drawer) which alerted to several locations.
- A warrant search recovered 769.66 g of crack in a jacket in the southeast bedroom, 293.2 g marijuana and smaller crack samples in the northwest bedroom, $9,300 in cash, surveillance equipment, mail and billing addressed to Wright, and other indicia linking Wright to the residence.
- Wright moved to suppress arguing (1) warrantless reentry/search occurred before the warrant and (2) the warrant lacked probable cause because the officers didn’t photograph the marijuana in plain view; the district court credited officers’ testimony and denied suppression.
- At trial jury convicted Wright of possessing crack with intent to distribute; court denied motions for acquittal. Wright appealed suppression denial, sufficiency of evidence as to the large crack quantity, and a Confrontation Clause claim about an investigator’s out‑of‑court remark.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: credited officer testimony on suppression, held evidence sufficient for constructive possession and intent to distribute, and found the challenged out‑of‑court remark was not hearsay (thus not barred by the Confrontation Clause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress: were officers’ credibility findings / timing findings clearly erroneous? | Officers reentered/searched before warrant; lack of photograph undermines their plain‑view claim. | Officers smelled and saw marijuana during protective sweep; drawer was closed to test the canine; time discrepancy reflected arrival time, not search time. | Court affirmed: district court credibility findings not clearly erroneous; probable cause and exigent circumstances valid; search occurred after warrant. |
| Sufficiency of evidence: constructive possession of 769.66 g crack in southeast bedroom | No nexus linking Wright to crack in southeast bedroom; roommates lived there; key or access alone insufficient. | Wright co‑signed lease, paid rent in cash, ADT bill and mail in his name, surveillance system, small crack in his bedroom with same mixture, large cash — all support dominion/knowledge and intent to distribute. | Court affirmed: evidence permitted reasonable jury to infer Wright had dominion/constructive (exclusive or joint) possession and intent to distribute. |
| Sufficiency as to intent to distribute | No direct evidence of sales; quantity alone may be contested. | Large quantity (~$77,000 street value), large cash, surveillance and alarm, and packaging/paraphernalia support distribution inference. | Court affirmed: quantity plus circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer intent to distribute. |
| Confrontation Clause (out‑of‑court statement by Sexson relayed by Brooks) | Admission violated Sixth Amendment because Sexson did not testify. | Brooks’ testimony recounted Sexson’s words only to explain Brooks’ conduct (effect on listener), not to prove truth of Sexson’s assertion. | Court held statement was not hearsay (offered for its effect on the listener), so Confrontation Clause not implicated; admission upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruiz, 569 F.3d 355 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for suppression factual findings)
- United States v. Funk, 985 F.2d 391 (8th Cir. 1993) (deference to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir. 1995) (credibility findings "virtually unreviewable" absent extrinsic contradiction)
- United States v. Wajda, 810 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1987) (joint occupancy requires additional nexus to prove constructive possession)
- United States v. Brett, 872 F.2d 1365 (8th Cir. 1989) (constructive possession may be joint; factual context matters for key evidence)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain‑view seizure doctrine)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent witness availability and prior cross‑examination)
- United States v. Murray, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent source doctrine)