United States v. Patrick Jacques
16-10254
| 11th Cir. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Police responded to assault and shots-fired calls in Miami's Little Haiti; a witness described a gray Nissan and provided a partial plate.
- Officers stopped a gray Nissan matching the BOLO; passenger Patrick Jacques and driver Marlene Phanor were arrested.
- Search of the car recovered a .32 handgun and drugs: 37 small baggies of marijuana and 10 rocks of crack cocaine, all in the trunk.
- At the station, after waiving rights, Jacques admitted possessing marijuana that day, admitted past marijuana sales, admitted placing the gun in the trunk, denied firing it, and denied selling crack that day.
- At trial, police testimony (lay and expert) described the interrogation, packaging and street value of drugs, and relevance of the small gun to drug dealing; GSR/DNA evidence had been destroyed.
- Jury convicted Jacques on felon-in-possession, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possession with intent to distribute; district court designated him a career offender and sentenced him to 120 months; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jacques) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Jacques’s admissions plus recovered gun and drugs support convictions | Affirmed — evidence was sufficient |
| Admissibility of interrogation testimony (Officer Philippe) | Testimony improperly admitted; prejudicial | Testimony was lay opinion based on personal perception and helpful | Admissible; any error harmless |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor’s remarks improperly suggested police only arrest criminals; prejudiced jury | Remark was a single stray comment; overall evidence strong | Improper remark found but harmless (no reversible prejudice) |
| Request for spoliation jury instruction (destroyed GSR/DNA) | District court should instruct jury on spoliation | No settled law recognizing such instruction in criminal cases | Court declines to recognize spoliation instruction in criminal context; refusal not an abuse |
| Career-offender designation | Designation was erroneous (challenge to predicate crime) | Predicate burglary conviction qualifies under residual clause | Designation upheld under residual clause per Beckles; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.) (standard for reversing on sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir.) (lay opinion testimony admissible when based on personal knowledge and helpful)
- United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.) (same principle for lay witness testimony)
- United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (standard for prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.) (discussion on spoliation instruction authority)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (addressing residual-clause issues relevant to career-offender analysis)