United States v. Steven Sullivan
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10030
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sullivan was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance analogue (mephedrone) under 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A), 813, and 841(a)(1)(C).
- The district court sentenced Sullivan to 92 months’ imprisonment; conviction affirmed on appeal.
- Powder seized from Sullivan’s vehicle contained mephedrone, an analogue illegal under the CSAEA as to intent for human consumption.
- Labels on bags advertised a “bliss” experience and did not disclose ingredients; the packaging suggested distribution for human consumption.
- DEA and local officers testified about the emerging illicit market for bath salts and the historical labeling/packaging of mephedrone as not intended for legitimate bath use.
- At trial, evidence supported that mephedrone was a controlled analogue, Sullivan possessed it, and he intended to distribute for human consumption, leading to the affirmance of the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the evidence prove Sullivan knew the substance was a controlled analogue? | Sullivan contends he could not know it was an analogue at arrest time. | The government argues sufficiency exists because information at arrest supported knowledge. | No reasonable jury could have found lack of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Sullivan intended the mephedrone for human consumption? | Labels stating not for human consumption negate, or weigh against, intent evidence. | Other indicators (labels, packaging, and circumstances) show intent for human consumption. | Evidence supports intent to distribute for human consumption despite labels. |
| Do CSAEA provisions regarding analogue status apply without DEA scheduling at the time? | Classification timing should matter for analogue status. | CSA EA regulates analogue status regardless of DEA scheduling; timing not dispositive. | CSA EA applies and supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wells, 706 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2013) (sufficiency review standard for evidence in criminal cases)
- United States v. Espinoza, 684 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference to jury verdict; sufficiency evaluation)
- United States v. Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010) (view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict)
- United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Yang, 603 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2010) (lives in the sufficiency review framework)
- United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2002) (not dispositive where other indicators show intent for consumption)