United States v. Roderick L. Cochran, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12097

Background

Cochran was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine, based on a theory of constructive possession.
A search of 110 Lucille Avenue yielded drugs, scales, and paraphernalia; Cochran stood in the driveway during the search.
A government pattern jury instruction on constructive possession was modified by an added sentence proposed by the government; Cochran objected.
Surveillance witness Pettacio testified Cochran exited and re-entered the home; Cochran contested the reliability of that testimony.
The district court admitted Cochran’s prior drug offense under Rule 404(b); Cochran challenged its relevance and probative value.
The jury acquitted on the ammunition count but convicted on the drug offenses, and Cochran was sentenced to 132 months.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the constructive possession instruction misleading as a matter of law?	Cochran argued the added sentence removed the knowledge requirement and invaded jury inference.	The government argued the instruction properly conveyed construct. possession; the overall charge cured errors.	Not reversible error; the instruction flawed but not misled given total charge.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting Rule 404(b) evidence?	Cochran contended the evidence was not relevant to living location and was overly prejudicial.	Government argued act evidence showed intent; it was probative and not unduly prejudicial.	No abuse; evidence relevant, sufficiently supported, probative, and not outweighed by prejudice.
Is there sufficient evidence to support Cochran's drug-conviction verdicts?	Cochran claimed no linking evidence tied him to the drugs; presence is insufficient for possession.	Gov't showed Cochran in proximity, with a key to the residence and drugs in common areas, supporting possession and intent.	Sufficient evidence to sustain convictions; reasonable juror could find knowing possession and intent.

Key Cases Cited

Park v. United States, 421 F.2d 658 (U.S. Supreme Court 1975) (reiterates holistic review of jury instructions)
United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of properly challenged instructions)
United States v. McCoy, 539 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1976) (holistic approach to evaluating jury instructions)
United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1975) (contextual evaluation of charges as a whole)
United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028 (11th Cir. 1982) (jury’s inference role in constructing possession)
United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652 (11th Cir. 1990) (constructive possession may be shown by evidence of control over premises)
United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1989) (control of premises can support possession inference)
United States v. Gardiner, 955 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1992) (mere presence not sufficient for possession; weight of evidence matters)
United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (credibility and sufficiency in evaluating eyewitness testimony)
United States v. Harris, 20 F.3d 445 (11th Cir. 1994) (weighing conflicting testimonial evidence for sufficiency)
United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (knowledge and intent required for possession offenses)
United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 1995) (defendant’s plea affects issue of intent)
United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (remote acts can prove intent in drug cases)
United States v. Lampley, 68 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 1995) (prior convictions may be probative of intent)
United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2009) (prior bad acts evidence probative of intent; Rule 404(b) concerns)
United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)