United States v. Marcus Burrage
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16286
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Burrage was convicted of distribution of heroin and of distribution resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C); sentences were 240 months concurrent.
- Evidence included a controlled heroin purchase by Breanne Brown identifying Burrage as Lil C, supported by audio recording and officer testimony.
- Noragon Banka testified that Banka died after using heroin; toxicology showed multiple drugs and heroin metabolites.
- Dr. Schwilke opined heroin contributed to Banka’s death but could not state death would not occur without heroin; Dr. McLemore certified mixed-drug intoxication with heroin as a contributing factor.
- The district court denied Burrage’s motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial; Burrage appealed the new-trial denial, the sufficiency of evidence, and evidentiary rulings.
- The panel affirmed the conviction and denial of post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause requirement under § 841(b)(1)(C)? | Burrage argues need for proximate-cause proof. | Burrage contends McIntosh requires proximate cause; Monnier should be overruled. | Court held no proximate-cause requirement under § 841(b)(1); record supported contributing-cause instruction. |
| Contributing cause language in causation instruction? | Burrage seeks explicit proximate-cause instruction. | Monnier supports contributing-cause framing; McIntosh not required. | Instruction including contributing clause upheld; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct about voice on recording and closing? | Prosecutor implied voice matched Burrage; violated objected or pre-trial agreement. | Questions on cross and closing were proper; door opened by Burrage; no misconduct. | No reversible error; comments were proper and not plain error. |
| Heard testimony and pre-trial earwitness agreement violation? | Prosecutor breached pre-trial agreement by relying on earswitness implications. | Agreement not violated; no expert earwitness used. | District court did not abuse discretion; any error harmless. |
| Weight of the evidence / new-trial sua sponte issue? | Burrage claims weight of evidence warranted new trial. | Not preserved for appeal; court cannot grant sua sponte new trial. | No plain error; district court acted within limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Monnier, 412 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2005) (contribution/causation standard under § 841(b)(1) approved)
- United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2001) (proximate cause not required under § 841(b)(1) for death)
- United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2010) (voice-identification concerns and final instruction approaches)
- United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (reversal for abuse of discretion when instructions misstate law)
- United States v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency standard on review of denial of Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Martinson, 419 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error standard for unpreserved issues)
- United States v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for prosecutorial-misconduct claims)