United States v. Matthew Davis
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11566
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Matthew Davis was indicted for conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine (2002–2012) and tried jointly with Timothy Kirlin; convicted by jury and sentenced to 360 months imprisonment.
- Government presented cooperating co‑conspirator testimony that Kirlin ran a Kansas City distribution network; multiple witnesses said Davis bought large quantities frequently and received drugs on credit.
- Evidence showed Davis redistributed drugs at his residence to numerous persons, pooled money to obtain heroin for others, shared drugs while hosting parties, and facilitated a distribution after a Kirlin referral.
- One witness linked Davis to the death of Amber McGathey (body found at Davis’s residence), though the jury found distribution was not the but‑for cause of her death.
- Defense presented testimony that Kirlin told a private investigator Davis was only a user purchasing user quantities; Davis argued he was merely a buyer and not a conspirator.
- At trial the district court denied a judgment of acquittal; Davis accepted the court’s buyer‑seller jury instruction at trial but later challenged sufficiency of the evidence and the refused alternative instruction on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of conspiracy to distribute | Govt: testimony and facts show agreement, knowledge, and intentional joining of conspiracy | Davis: merely an addicted buyer; redistributed only as a user; periods of incarceration preclude participation | Affirmed — viewed favorably to govt; redistribution over time and knowledge of suppliers supported membership in conspiracy |
| Whether buyer‑seller relationship required instruction | Govt: court instruction that buyer‑seller alone insufficient accurately states law | Davis: proposed a different buyer‑seller instruction he later objected to on appeal | Waived — Davis expressly agreed to the court’s instruction at trial; invited error doctrine applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aponte, 619 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.) (standard for judgment of acquittal review)
- United States v. Castillo, 713 F.3d 407 (8th Cir.) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.) (elements of drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir.) (single conspiracy may span changing participants/acts)
- United States v. Prieskorn, 658 F.2d 631 (8th Cir.) (classic buyer‑seller is a single transient sale; no broader conspiracy)
- United States v. Boykin, 794 F.3d 939 (8th Cir.) (buyer who intends to redistribute may be co‑conspirator)
- United States v. Peeler, 779 F.3d 773 (8th Cir.) (continuing buyer‑seller relationship can establish conspiracy membership)
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir.) (invited‑error doctrine; agreeing to instruction waives objection)
- United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir.) (invited error and waiver of instruction objections)
- United States v. Mariano, 729 F.3d 874 (8th Cir.) (agreeing to instruction waives appellate challenge)