United States v. Keisha Boyd
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11426
8th Cir.2015Background
- Keisha Boyd, convicted previously for aiding and abetting meth distribution, was on supervised release when the government moved to revoke in May 2014.
- Officer Michelle Sims was Boyd’s original supervising probation officer and had prepared probation-office records; Sims had retired before the revocation hearing. Jay Hudson, the new supervising officer, testified about the probation file. Boyd objected that Hudson lacked personal knowledge and sought Sims’s live testimony. The district court allowed Hudson to testify about the file.
- Jonesboro Police Officer Brandon King testified that during a traffic stop Boyd admitted there was stolen property in the vehicle, knew of additional stolen property at a motel, and led officers to recover more property; Boyd was later charged in state court with burglary and theft.
- The district court found Boyd committed a Grade A supervised-release violation (treating the conduct as burglary/a crime of violence) and sentenced her to 19 months’ imprisonment (within the 15–21 month range for Grade A with Category II history).
- On appeal Boyd argued (1) admitting Hudson’s testimony in lieu of Sims violated her right to confront adverse witnesses under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C), and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a Grade A finding because there was no proof of burglary or property value required for a felony theft. The court rejected the confrontation claim but found the Grade A finding clearly erroneous for lack of burglary evidence and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substituting Officer Hudson for retired Officer Sims denied Boyd the right to question an adverse witness | Boyd: Hudson lacked personal knowledge; Sims’s live testimony was required | Gov: Sims was retired and Hudson, who authored/maintains the probation file and now supervises Boyd, could reliably testify about the file; live testimony would be burdensome | Court: No abuse of discretion in allowing Hudson to testify, though the court should have asked more about Sims’s availability |
| Whether evidence supported finding a Grade A violation (burglary/crime of violence) | Boyd: No evidence she entered a structure or participated in burglary; at most knowledge of stolen property; insufficient proof of burglary or property value for felony theft | Gov: Officer King’s testimony about Boyd’s admissions and knowing location of stolen property supported involvement in burglary or felony theft | Court: Reversed — record lacked evidence of unlawful entry or that property came from a structure, so Grade A finding (burglary) was clearly erroneous; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2013) (defendant entitled to opportunity to question adverse witness unless court balances and finds confrontation unnecessary)
- United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986) (articulating factors for balancing right to confrontation in revocation hearings)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (definition of generic burglary used for categorical analyses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definition of generic burglary elements)
- United States v. Bearden, 780 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding generic burglary is a crime of violence for guideline purposes)