Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06231/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06231-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Wayne Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

" 

' 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit . FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DAVID WAYNE HENDERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

DEC 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6231 

(D.C. No. CR-89-22-W) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before HOLLOWAY' Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and BROWR, 

District Judge·* 

This case involves an appeal from a conviction of various 

drug related offenses. The facts of the case are set out in 

detail in the related published opinion filed today in United 

States of America v. Andre Lawrence Williams, 

Cir. 1990), arising from the same trial. 

I. 

F.2d (10th 

Admission of Claimed 404(b) "Other Acts" Evidence 

Henderson claims that the trial judge incorrectly admitted 

certain evidence, specifically Exhibit 22, concerning other 

-* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 1 
,,. 

wrongful acts of Henderson in the jury trial in violation of Rule 

404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Exhibit 22 was a criminal complaint of unlawful entry1 

against Marvin Roberts, an alias for David Henderson. II R. at 

58-59. When the government tried to introduce the complaint in 

evidence the defendant objected, but the objection was overruled 

and the exhibit was admitted. Id. at 63-64. Defendant Henderson 

argues that Exhibit 22 had no probative value, but was unduly 

prejudicial, thus making it inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence. See also Rule 403 Fed. R. Evid. 

Defendant further claims that even if the exhibit might have been 

admissible under the exceptions to Rule 404(b), the trial court 

committed reversible error by not specifically identifying the 

purpose for which the evidence was admitted2 and by not giving a 

limiting instruction to the jury, 3 • 

We disagree. In Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 

688-89 (1988), the Supreme Court stated that "Congress was not 

nearly so concerned with the potential prejudicial effect of Rule 

404(b) evidence as it was with ensuring that restrictions would 

not be placed on the admission of such evidence." In our 

application of Rule 404(b), we have subsequently said that "[a] 

1 

The complaint was for "being on property of Adam's Gate 

apartment complex after being told prior not to be on property." 

2 

See United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906, 913 (10th Cir. 

1988), vacated on other grounds, 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir. 1990). 

3 

See United States v. Kendall 766 F.2d 1426, 1436 (10th Cir. 

1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 2 
"' 

,, defendant is protected from unfair prejudice if the evidence is 

relevant and offered for a proper purpose, if the probative value 

is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair 

prejudice, and if the court, upon request, instructs the jury to 

consider the evidence only for the proper purpose for which it was 

admitted." United States v. Suntar Roofing, Inc., 897 F.2d 469, 

479 (10th Cir. 1990); Huddleston at 691-92. Specifically, 

regarding Kendall, we have held that failure to follow its 

procedure for articulation of the purposes for which 404(b) 

evidence was admitted would be considered harmless if the 

"transcript reflects that the 'decision to admit' was proper under 

the requirements of Huddleston." United States v. Record, 873 

F.2d 1363, 1375 n.7 (10th Cir. 1989). Here the government 

asserts, and we agree, that the complaint was introduced to show 

that Mr. Henderson had a relationship to the apa~tment beyond that 

of a mere visitor. The complaint was found in a hall closet, 

where a visitor would be unlikely to leave his personal documents. 

II R. at 58-59. And we do not feel that the unlawful entry 

complaint was so inflammatory that there was prejudice that 

outweighed its probative value. 

The claim of error in the trial court's failure to give a 

limiting instruction is meritless. There was no request made at 

trial for such an instruction. See Record, at 1376; Huddleston, 

at 691-92. We feel that the admission of the complaint met the 

criteria set forth in Huddleston and no error was committed. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 3 
II. 

Sufficiency of the Evidence 

Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

convict him of any of the counts with which he was charged. 

Consequently, the trial court should have granted his motion for 

judgment of acquittal, made after the close of the government's 

case in chief. II R. at 244. 

In reviewing such a ruling, the evidence is deemed sufficient 

if it is such that when considered in the light most favorable to 

the government, "any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1970) (emphasis in 

original); see United States v. Jenkins, 904 F.2d 549, 553 (10th 

Cir. 1990), cert. denied, u.s. _, 111 s.ct. 395 _ (1990); 

United States v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1455 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The evidence supporting a conviction must be substantial, raising 

more than a mere suspicion of guilt, Troutman, at 1455, yet the 

evidence can be wholly circumstantial. See United States v. 

Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1530 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 475 

U.S. 1128 (1986); United States v. Downen, 496 F.2d 314, 318 

(10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897 (1974). 

A. Count I 

Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine 

To convict on this count it is necessary to prove that two or 

more persons agreed to violate the law, that the defendant knew at 

least the essential objectives of the conspiracy, and that the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. 

United States v. Fox, 902 F.2d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 4 
\ denied, u.s. __ , 111 s.ct. 199 (1990); United States v. 

Savaiano, 843 F.2d 1280, 1294 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 

U.S. 836 (1988). 

Cocaine was being sold out of both the Scott Street apartment 

and the Hampton Street house. II R. at 5, 22. Mr. Johnson, a 

government witness, testified that he had purchased cocaine from 

the defendant Henderson. Id. at 97-98, 131-32. At the Hampton 

Street house, the defendant was outside just before execution of 

the search warrant; when he saw the approaching police he turned 

toward the house and gave a loud whistle. Id. at 12. We hold 

that there was sufficient evidence before the jury to convict the 

defendant on Count I. 

B. Count V 

Using or Carrying of Firearms 

During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime 

Government witness Mark Johnson testified that while in the 

Scott Street apartment to purchase cocaine, he had seen several 

guns, some lying on the table, and one which was carried by 

defendant Henderson. Id. at 140, 145-50. At the time of the 

search warrant execution at the Scott Street apartment, two loaded 

firearms were found, one next to stacks of money on the kitchen 

table and one on a stereo in the living room. Id. at 37-42. A 

maid who cleaned the apartment also testified that guns were 

readily present and accessible. Id. at 163. We hold that the 

evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the 

defendant used or carried a firearm during and in relation to the 

distribution of cocaine. See United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 

669, 674-75 (10th Cir. 1989)(conviction under S 924(c) upheld 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 5 
\ where firearm was readily accessible and was an integral part of 

the crime and increased the likelihood of a successful operation). 

C. Counts VI and IX 

Maintaining a Premises for the 

Purpose of Distribution of Cocaine 

Witness Johnson's cocaine purchase from the defendant took 

place at the Scott Street apartment. Id. at 97-98, 131-32. 

Additionally, a personal document of Henderson's, the criminal 

complaint discussed earlier, was found in a closet at the 

apartment, thus indicating some degree of connection with the 

premises. Henderson's actions at the Hampton Street house, 

warning the persons inside and then attempting to run away, again 

indicated significant connection to those premises. We feel there 

was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt on Counts VI and IX. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

Chief Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6231 Document: 010110097357 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 6