United States v. Michael Cooper, 990 F.3d 576

Background

On Aug. 11, 2018, Darcy Hoff bought suspected heroin from Michael Cooper for H.K.; H.K. injected it and became unresponsive; first responders administered two doses of Narcan and breathing assistance and H.K. revived.
Paramedics and an expert opined H.K. suffered an opioid overdose; hospital toxicology was positive for cocaine but not for fentanyl (which may not show on that screen).
A search of Cooper’s motel room (Aug. 16, 2018) uncovered burned spoons and a substance later tested positive for fentanyl and ANPP.
Hoff testified she regularly bought heroin and Dilaudid (hydromorphone) from Cooper and had previously been present when a third party overdosed on drugs obtained from Cooper; Cooper admitted selling Dilaudid but denied selling heroin.
Cooper was charged and, after a second trial, convicted of distribution of a controlled substance resulting in serious bodily injury and conspiracy to distribute hydromorphone; he was sentenced to concurrent 240-month terms.
On appeal Cooper challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for both convictions, (2) admission of prior-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) (prior transactions and a prior overdose), and (3) admission of a 2012 felony aggravated-assault conviction under Rule 609 for impeachment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for distribution causing serious bodily injury (21 U.S.C. §841 with enhancement)	Evidence showed Cooper sold the substance (H.K./Hoff testimony; fentanyl/ANPP found in room); medical testimony supported opioid overdose and but-for causation	No physical evidence linking sales to H.K.’s drug; no proof H.K. faced substantial risk of death; Hoff was unreliable	Affirmed. Viewing evidence favorably to gov’t, a reasonable jury could find Cooper distributed a controlled substance that but-for caused H.K.’s serious bodily injury (substantial risk of death)
Sufficiency for conspiracy to distribute hydromorphone	Hoff’s and Cooper’s own testimony established repeated sales and Cooper’s awareness Hoff resold, supporting an agreement	(Not squarely argued on appeal)	Affirmed. Evidence supported an inferred agreement and Cooper’s knowing participation
Admissibility of prior acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (prior drug transactions and Hoff’s knowledge of a prior overdose)	Prior drug transactions show intent/motive and are similar in kind and timely	Prior-overdose testimony was irrelevant to intent; prior acts risky and prejudicial	Prior transactions: admissible. Prior-overdose evidence: admitting Hoff’s knowledge of a prior overdose was erroneous (not probative of intent) but the error was harmless given the strong case against Cooper
Admissibility of 2012 felony aggravated-assault conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 609	Conviction admissible to impeach Cooper’s credibility if he testified; probative value outweighed prejudice	Prior felony is prejudicial and should be excluded	Affirmed. District court properly balanced and admitted the conviction for impeachment (probative > prejudicial)

Key Cases Cited

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (establishes but-for causation standard for enhanced §841 penalties)
United States v. Seals, 915 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir. 2019) (upheld distribution + serious bodily injury where overdose followed injection and experts tied collapse to injected mixture)
United States v. Lewis, 895 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2018) (discusses elements for §841 conviction with serious bodily injury)
United States v. Morales, 813 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (knowledge of possession need not include knowing exact drug identity)
United States v. Geddes, 844 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2017) (standards for admitting Rule 404(b) prior-act evidence)
United States v. Collier, 527 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 609 impeachment balancing review)
United States v. Ramos, 852 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 2017) (witness testimony can suffice to prove repeated drug sales)
United States v. Lee, 687 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2012) (buyer testimony sufficient to sustain distribution convictions)