United States v. Winn
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25132
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Winn was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and use or carriage of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
- Evidence at trial included a car chase, a firearm found on Winn, and marijuana, a digital scale, and baggies in Winn's Camaro and in a bag under the front passenger seat.
- Genetic analysis linked Winn to the marijuana packaging and the digital scale; one bag had Winn as a possible contributor; another bag had insufficient data; a third bag showed Winn as a possible contributor; scale showed Winn as a clear major contributor.
- Prior evidence: Winn was arrested in August 2007 with marijuana, a scale, and a firearm; district court admitted this under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and intent.
- Defense witness testified Winn did not knowingly possess the marijuana in the Camaro.
- Jury instructions included some references to an uncharged possession offense, but final instructions correctly stated the charged use or carriage offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2007 arrest under Rule 404(b) | Winn argues prior arrest is admissible for knowledge/intent. | Winn argues unfair prejudice and lack of similarity to charged offense. | Admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Jury instructions on the firearm offense | Instructions improperly labeled the charge as possession in furtherance. | Overall charge still correctly stated the use or carry offense. | No plain error; taken as a whole, instructions properly conveyed charged offense. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm conviction | Evidence does not show the firearm was used in relation to drug trafficking. | Firearm protected drugs or was used in a shootout related to trafficking. | Sufficient evidence that firearm was used or carried during and in relation to a drug offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trogdon v. United States, 575 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 404(b) decisions)
- United States v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (framework for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (preponderance standard for Rule 404(b) relevance)
- Stenger v. United States, 605 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) admissibility analysis)
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (distinction between 924(c)(1)(A) offenses)
- United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinction between use/carry and possession theories)
- United States v. Brown, 560 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for jury charges)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (definition of 'during and in relation to' in § 924(c)(1)(A))
- United States v. Espinosa, 300 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2002) (firearms' role in protecting drug proceeds)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990) (reviewing instructions in the context of the whole charge)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Sheriff Sherman, 440 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2006) (contextual evaluation of jury instructions)