United States v. Leslie Armstrong
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5814
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Armstrong was convicted by a jury of one count of distributing 12.5 grams of crack cocaine (2009 controlled buy) and sentenced to 180 months. Trial evidence included testimony from a confidential informant (CI), audio/video recording of the buy, and forensic analysis of the seized baggies.
- The CI had participated in prior controlled buys, identified Armstrong by voice and residence, and testified he purchased two baggies for $700 from Armstrong during the 2009 buy; the recording captured Armstrong saying “you paid me for two.”
- Government gave pretrial notice under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of prior bad-act evidence, including a 2007 controlled buy (same CI) in which CI identified a supplier called “Wez” (allegedly Armstrong); the district court admitted it with a limiting instruction.
- Defense attacked the CI’s credibility (criminal history, bias, animus toward Armstrong, drug use); district court instructed jury that 2007-buy evidence could be considered only for identity/intent and only if unanimously found more likely true than not.
- At sentencing, the PSR recommended career-offender treatment based on manslaughter and two prior drug convictions (1991, 1992). The district court excluded the manslaughter predicate but counted the 1991 and 1992 drug offenses as separate predicates because they were separated by an intervening arrest; Armstrong appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2007 controlled-buy evidence under Rule 404(b) | Govt: evidence admissible to prove identity, knowledge, intent because Armstrong asserted a general denial | Armstrong: evidence was only propensity evidence and insufficiently proved his involvement | Admission affirmed: evidence relevant to intent/identity; proved by preponderance; probative > prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 2009 distribution conviction | Govt: CI testimony, corroborating AV footage, and 404(b) evidence support verdict | Armstrong: CI was unreliable and AV did not plainly show money/drug exchange | Conviction affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Career-offender status — whether 1991 and 1992 drug convictions count separately (intervening arrest) | Govt: Armstrong was subject to an intervening arrest because a bench warrant was served and he was detained on the charge while jailed on other charges | Armstrong: being already in custody means he was not arrested for the 1991 drug offense; serving a warrant was merely a detainer | Sentence affirmed: serving warrant while in custody constituted an intervening arrest for Guidelines purposes; convictions counted separately |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and Rule 404(b) framework)
- United States v. Jourdain, 433 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirements for admissibility of prior-act evidence)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (Rule 104(b) and standard for admitting similar-act evidence)
- United States v. Sykes, 977 F.2d 1242 (8th Cir. 1992) (precedent on reasonable- jury finding that defendant committed prior act)
- United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2014) (elements for § 841(a)(1) and intent/knowledge issues)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (discussion that being jailed to face charges amounts to an arrest)