Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02811/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Ford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2811

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri. 

Marvin Ford, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

* 

___________

Submitted: April 9, 2007

Filed: September 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Marvin Ford of possession with intent to distribute more than

five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Ford appeals the

conviction, and we affirm.

I.

On April 22, 2005, St. Louis police executed a search warrant at Ford’s home.

To enhance the security of the raid, police enticed Ford to leave the apartment by

Appellate Case: 06-2811 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2007 Entry ID: 3354339
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

pretending that an undercover police vehicle had crashed into Ford’s parked car.

When Ford came out of the house to discuss the apparent accident, he left a marijuana

cigarette behind his ear. An officer arrested Ford for possession of marijuana, and a

search incident to the arrest revealed a small amount of crack cocaine on his person.

The officers proceeded into the house to execute the search warrant. They

found a box of sandwich bags, a scale, and numerous sandwich bags wrapped in duct

tape. One bag in Ford’s bedroom, wrapped in duct tape and aluminum foil, contained

8.45 grams of cocaine base.

At trial, the district court1

 admitted evidence of a prior conviction that Ford

sustained for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The jury ultimately

convicted Ford of possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine

base. On appeal, Ford challenges the district court’s decision to admit the prior

conviction. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the

verdict.

II.

We review the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Voegtlin, 437 F.3d 741, 745 (8th Cir. 2006). Evidence of prior bad

acts is not admissible merely to show a defendant’s propensity for unlawful behavior,

but such evidence may be received for the limited purpose of showing knowledge or

intent, or for other purposes enumerated in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). A prior

conviction for possession with intent to distribute drugs “is admissible to show such

things as knowledge and intent of a defendant charged with a crime in which intent

Appellate Case: 06-2811 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2007 Entry ID: 3354339
-3-

to distribute drugs is an element.” United States v. Logan, 121 F.3d 1172, 1178 (8th

Cir. 1997).

At trial, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Ford knowingly possessed cocaine base and intended to distribute it. United States

v. Jara, 474 F.3d 1018, 1021 (8th Cir. 2007). Ford’s prior conviction was relevant to

show that Ford knew the substance he possessed was cocaine base, and that Ford

intended to distribute the substance. See United States v. Bryson, 110 F.3d 575, 583

(8th Cir. 1997). We have held repeatedly that such convictions are properly admitted

to prove knowledge and intent. See United States v. Jackson, 278 F.3d 769, 771 (8th

Cir. 2002); United States v. Johnson, 318 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2003); United States

v. Foster, 344 F.3d 799, 801 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting evidence of Ford’s prior conviction for possession with intent

to distribute cocaine base.

Ford also challenges the sufficiency of the government’s evidence against him.

Ford asserts that the government did not introduce sufficient evidence that he intended

to distribute the cocaine base found in his bedroom. “In reviewing for sufficiency of

the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we

will overturn a conviction only if no reasonable jury could have concluded that the

defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each essential element of the

charge.” United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1067 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal

quotation omitted).

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference

that Ford knowingly possessed cocaine base with intent to distribute it. The discovery

of a bag containing cocaine base in Ford’s bedroom, an area over which he had

dominion and control, supports an inference that Ford knowingly possessed the

controlled substance. Ford’s prior conviction for possessing cocaine base strengthens

the inference that he knew the substance was cocaine base. 

Appellate Case: 06-2811 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2007 Entry ID: 3354339
-4-

On the issue of intent, the prosecution presented the testimony of an expert

witness, James McHugh of the Drug Enforcement Administration. McHugh testified

that the amount of cocaine base discovered under Ford’s mattress amounted to more

than eighty doses for personal use. He opined that 8.45 grams was “more typical of

someone that’s not keeping it for personal use but preparing it for distribution.” (T.

Tr. II, at 16). By presenting proof that police found a scale and numerous sandwich

bags in Ford’s residence, the prosecution bolstered McHugh’s testimony with

circumstantial evidence that Ford was involved in the resale of drugs. Intent to

distribute the drugs may be inferred solely from the possession of large quantities of

narcotics, United States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2002), and the

presence of packaging materials and a scale strengthens the inference. Id.

Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. 

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2811 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/21/2007 Entry ID: 3354339