United States v. McKenzie
686 F. App'x 77
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Carlos McKenzie was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 846) in the Western District of New York; he appealed the conviction.
- Prosecution evidence included testimony from coconspirators, video surveillance, intercepted wire communications discussing drug deals, and large quantities of seized MDMA/ecstasy pills.
- McKenzie testified that he believed he was selling legal "sex pills," not illegal drugs; the jury rejected that explanation.
- At trial the district court instructed the jury that the government need not prove the defendant knew the precise chemical identity of the controlled substance, only that he knew it was a controlled substance.
- A special verdict form used at trial did not explicitly state that drug-quantity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; the court repeatedly instructed the jury on the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard elsewhere in the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove mens rea | Gov: Evidence (witnesses, wiretaps, surveillance, seized pills) supports that McKenzie knew he dealt a controlled substance. | McKenzie: He lacked requisite knowledge; believed pills were lawful "sex pills." | Affirmed — reasonable juror could find McKenzie knew he was distributing a controlled substance. |
| Jury instruction on knowledge in light of McFadden | Gov: McFadden (Analogue Act) is inapplicable; longstanding law permits proof that defendant knew substance was a controlled drug without knowing its precise chemical identity. | McKenzie: District court erred by telling jurors they need not find knowledge of precise chemical composition, allegedly inconsistent with McFadden. | Affirmed — McFadden inapposite; instruction that chemical identity need not be proved was proper. |
| Special verdict form and proof of drug quantity beyond reasonable doubt | Gov: Jury was repeatedly instructed on the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, including for quantity. | McKenzie: Special verdict form failed to specify that quantity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (no objection at trial). | Affirmed — no plain error; instructions repeatedly conveyed the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, including as to quantity. |
| Standard of review for unpreserved challenge to verdict form | Gov: Any objection was forfeited; review should be for plain error. | McKenzie: Contends error in verdict form (but did not object below). | Affirmed — plain-error review applies and no plain error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harvey, 746 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency challenge)
- United States v. Kozeny, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (resolving credibility in favor of jury on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Vargas-Cordon, 733 F.3d 366 (2d Cir.) (Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Santos, 541 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.) (elements of drug conspiracy: existence, knowledge, intentional joining)
- United States v. Andino, 627 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (no need to prove knowledge of exact drug type/quantity when defendant personally participated)
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (Analogue Act knowledge requirement; held inapplicable here)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir.) (reviewing jury charge as a whole; error and prejudice requirement)
- United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved jury-form objections)