United States v. Matthew Olsson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8490
8th Cir.2013Background
- Olsson was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine; district court sentenced to 180 months.
- Authorities executed a search warrant at 5321 Ponderosa Apt. B, Columbia, Missouri; found Olsson upstairs with Walker and numerous drugs/paraphernalia.
- A separate search at Apartment A led to Everage; both Everage and Walker pled guilty to related charges.
- Olsson testified minimally; government’s case centered on Everage and Walker as key witnesses.
- Sentencing found Olsson qualified as a career offender based on prior burglary, possession with intent to distribute, and promoting child pornography convictions.
- The district court applied a 360 months to life guideline range and varied downward to 180 months concurrent on Counts 1 and 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination of witnesses was improperly limited | Olsson argues Confrontation Clause rights were violated by restrictive cross-examination | Olsson contends trial court abridged impeachment of witnesses | No reversible error; limits were within discretion and not prejudicial |
| Whether Olsson’s prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence for career offender status | Olsson contends burglary and child pornography do not constitute crimes of violence | Olsson concedes possession with intent to distribute is a controlled-substance offense; burglary qualifies as violence per precedent | Second-degree burglary is a crime of violence; Olsson has at least two qualifying convictions; career offender status affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dale, 614 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2010) (limits on cross-examination require prejudice shown for Confrontation Clause claim)
- United States v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (trial court wide latitude to limit cross-examination to avoid harassment, prejudice, etc.)
- United States v. Alston, 626 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 608 balancing probative value vs. prejudice; not abuse here)
- United States v. Hall, 171 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 1999) (limits on cross-examination where other avenues provide necessary impeachment)
- United States v. Gregory, 808 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1987) (harmless error when defendant ends line of questioning)
- United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2006) (commercial burglary classified as crime of violence)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (relevance to classification of crimes of violence for guidelines)
- United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2009) ( Begay interpretations not implicitly overruled for burglaries)