United States v. Luis Napolis
18-12856
11th Cir.May 14, 2019Background
- Police used a confidential informant (CI) to make controlled buys from Alejandro Zamora; CI bought 0.5 kg on Dec 6, 2017 and arranged to buy 1 kg on Dec 20, 2017.
- On Dec 20, SWAT executed a search warrant at a Hollywood, FL residence; Zamora and Luis Napolis were the only two people found inside.
- Officers found two ounces of cocaine in the master bathroom and one kilogram hidden in a covered shed area in the backyard.
- Zamora pleaded guilty; Napolis was tried, convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine, and sentenced as a career offender to 180 months.
- Napolis appealed, raising evidentiary challenges (limits on cross-examination about CI statements; admission of a 2015 criminal complaint) and sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims (conspiracy, possession, aiding and abetting).
Issues
| Issue | Napolis's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of testimony about CI’s prior contacts with Napolis violated Confrontation Clause/hearsay rules | Trial court’s exclusion prevented confrontation and impeachment about CI’s claimed lack of prior contact | CI’s out-of-court statements to agents were hearsay; no right to confront a non-testifying declarant through another witness; other testimony covered same point | No plain error: hearsay exclusion proper; no Confrontation Clause violation; excluded evidence would have been cumulative |
| Whether admission of a 2015 criminal complaint (Andres Zamora) was reversible error | Admission unfairly prejudiced Napolis by implying prior drug activity tied to the residence | Complaint used to impeach witness; collateral and not material to elements of charged offenses | Abuse of discretion in admitting complaint conceded by gov’t, but error harmless—no reasonable likelihood it affected verdict |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Napolis of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute | Evidence only showed Napolis was an overnight guest, not a knowing participant or possessor | Circumstantial and direct evidence (only two men present, movements to hide drugs, recorded inculpatory statements, surveillance) allowed reasonable inferences of agreement, control, and intent | Evidence sufficient; guilty verdict upheld; denial of judgment of acquittal proper |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying new trial based on weight of evidence | Verdict against weight of evidence; Napolis’s guest theory more plausible | Jury credibility determinations and circumstantial inferences supported verdict; new trial standard is narrow | No abuse of discretion; not an exceptional case warranting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodds v. United States, 347 F.3d 893 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
- Turner v. United States, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- Charles v. United States, 722 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review of Confrontation Clause claims raised on appeal)
- Shuler v. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974) (no confrontation right as to non-testifying, non-evidentiary declarant)
- Kabbaby v. United States, 672 F.2d 857 (11th Cir. 1982) (limitations on confronting non-testifying declarants)
- Drury v. United States, 396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2005) (harmlessness test for evidentiary errors affecting substantial rights)
- House v. United States, 684 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2012) (cumulative error doctrine)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 732 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Jiminez v. United States, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (jury resolves credibility)
- Foster v. United States, 878 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2018) (government need not disprove every hypothesis of innocence)
- Matthews v. United States, 168 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements and inferences supporting conspiracy)
- Hernandez v. United States, 433 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005) (constructive possession and intent inference from quantity)
- Cruickshank v. United States, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016) (elements of aiding and abetting)