United States v. Mark Shore
700 F.3d 366
8th Cir.2012Background
- Shores was convicted by a jury of six counts related to heroin, crack, firearms, and drug distribution in a single residence in St. Louis.
- Authorities executed a search at 3714 Melba Place on September 16, 2009, finding drugs and drug-trafficking paraphernalia; a year later, a warrant led to Shores’s arrest and a second search recovering a firearm and additional heroin.
- Shores’s wife consented to the 2010 search; the evidence included a revolver and 5.84 grams of heroin, leading to multiple drug- and firearm-related counts.
- District court sentenced Shores to concurrent sentences for drug offenses, plus a mandatory 60-month term under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), for a total of 322 months.
- Shores appealed the convictions and sentence, challenging evidentiary rulings, Rule 16 disclosures, jury instructions, Confrontation Clause concerns, and 3553(a) sentencing considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence was improperly admitted | Shores: improper 404(b) admission; lack of notice. | Shores: evidence is either intrinsic or sufficiently intertwined with charged conduct. | No plain error; testimony intrinsic or sufficiently intertwined. |
| Rule 16 disclosure sufficiency | Shores: undisclosed statement prejudiced defense. | Government notice via incident-face sheet; testimony cumulative. | No abuse of discretion; not reversible error. |
| Rule 403/characterization of heroin evidence | Evidence of heroin danger was prejudicial; should have been struck. | Limited prejudice; district court gave cautionary instruction; substantial guilt shown. | Harmless error; no new trial required. |
| Confrontation Clause and CI cross-examination | Right to confront the CI who provided the initial tip was violated. | Context for investigation; not hearsay if investigation propriety is at issue. | No Confrontation Clause violation; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Sentencing: §3553(a) and ACCA enhancement | district court failed to adequately weigh §3553(a) factors; sentence excessive. | Court properly considered factors; within-Guidelines range; ACCA valid. | No reversible error; sentence affirmed as within-guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for evidentiary rulings when no timely objection)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review for Rule 404(b) errors)
- United States v. Adams, 604 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2010) (intrinsic/intertwined evidence exception to Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Holliman, 291 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. 2002) (evidence related to drug distribution competence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2011) (when evidence relates to time-frame of charged conduct)
- United States v. Brown, 871 F.2d 80 (8th Cir. 1989) (cumulative evidence considerations in Rule 16 disclosure)
- United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 2009) (adequacy of consideration of §3553(a) factors on appeal)
- United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (guidelines consideration and sentencing goals)
- United States v. Davis, 154 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 1998) (context for non-hearsay purposes in investigations)
- United States v. Clark, 385 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2004) (plea-bargain notice and statutory frameworks in sentencing)