United States v. Joshua Kinchen
729 F.3d 466
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- FBI agent Stiles investigated Roger Brooks’s drug organization; Quamlisha Brooks bought two and a quarter ounces of cocaine base from Roger using a driver identified as LiT Maine who is Joshua Kinchen.
- Quamlisha identified Joshua as the expedition driver during the deal; Roger testified he did not pay attention to who handed him the drugs, and photos corroborated Joshua’s identification.
- Prior to trial, government sought to admit Joshua’s 2008 possession of 21 grams of crack cocaine and a concurrent statement that he sold drugs to feed his family; district court allowed subject to limiting references to last arrest/conviction.
- Evidence included detective Johnson’s testimony about finding drugs and Joshua’s statement; district court instructed jury on limited purpose and ordered no reference to the arrest/conviction.
- Trial showed competing theories about driver identity (Joshua vs. Nathaniel Kinchen); Joshua argued the driver was Nathaniel and Roger’s testimony supported Nathaniel.
- Jerome Kinchen was convicted of distributing 50 grams or more of cocaine base; sentenced to 180 months, five years’ supervised release; conviction challenged on evidentiary and sentencing grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior possession and concurrent statement were admissible under Rule 404(b) | Kinchen argues evidence was intrinsic or not probative under 404(b). | Kinchen contends extrinsic acts were improperly admitted and unfairly prejudicial. | Extrinsic evidence admissible for motive/identity only if probative outweighs prejudice. |
| Beecum analysis adequacy for 404(b) admission | Kinchen contends district court failed to properly conduct Beechum analysis. | Kinchen asserts Beechum two-step test satisfied and limits applied. | Court found Beechum analysis satisfied and no reversible error. |
| Legality of limiting Nathaniel Kinchen’s Fifth Amendment invocation in presence of jury | Kinchen contends denial violated Sixth/Fifth Amendment rights. | Kinchen argues procedure deprived defense. | District court could restrict invocation in presence of jury; no reversible error. |
| Harmlessness of 404(b) error in light of overall record | Kinchen challenges whether error could be deemed harmless given other evidence. | State contends error harmless due to abundant corroborating testimony. | Majority declined to address harmlessness; dissent finds not harmless. |
| Reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence given retroactive FSA | FSA retroactivity should affect sentence; error harmless if record shows alternative result. | Government argued error harmless; district court varied upward for deterrence reasons. | FSA retroactivity deemed harmless; upward variance upheld under 3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Beechum v. United States, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (two-pronged Beechum test for admissibility of 404(b) extrinsic evidence)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (see above (Beec-hum framework))
- United States v. McCall, 553 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error inquiry for erroneous 404(b) rulings)
- United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (Beec-hum analysis and 404(b) admissibility guidance)
- United States v. Vaquero, 997 F.2d 78 (5th Cir. 1993) (motive/intent considerations in drug-related prosecutions)
- United States v. Harris, 932 F.2d 1529 (5th Cir. 1991) (probative value of prior drug activities in 404(b) context)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness standard for sentences; substantial justification required)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA retroactivity to pre-August 3, 2010 offenses)