Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02767/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barbara Lynn Baggett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

NOV~ J 1999 

ROBERT L. l~IOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2767 

BARBARA LYNN BAGGETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma · ( D • C • No . CR 8 8-81. A ) 

Chris Eulberg of Eulberg & Brink, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and 

Bryce A. Baggett of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for DefendantAppellant. 

D. Blair Watson, Assistant United States Attorney (Robert E. 

Mydans, United States Attorney), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and KANE*, District 

Judge. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

*Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado, sitting by designation. · 

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 1 
After a jury ·trial, defendant Barbara Lynn Baggett was found 

guilty of simple possession of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) 

(1982 & Supp. V 1987), and of three counts of using a telephone to 

facilitate the distribution of heroin under 21 ·u.s.c. § 843(b) 

(1982). Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence to 

sQpport the jury's verdict on the possession count, and that 

section 843(b) does not apply to individuals who use the telephone 

to arrange drug purchases for their own personal use. We agree 

and we therefore reverse the conviction. 

I. 

FACTS 

On November 23, 1987, Barbara Baggett made the first of a 

number of phone calls to Steve Daniels, a suspected drug d~aler. 1 

On November 29, she made three more calls to Daniels, all recorded 

by the police, in which she arranged to purchase some cocaine and 

heroin, and to meet Daniels at a specified time and place. See 

Government Exhibits Nos. 61, 124, and 125; rec., vol. XI, at 1257-

60. At the prescribed location, an Oklahoma City police officer 

and an agent with the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous 

Drugs twice observed Steve Daniels meeting with a "white female" 

driving a car registered to Barbara Baggett. Rec., vol. XV, at. 

l In proceedings connected to this case, Daniels was convicted 

of various heroin conspiracy, racketeering, ·possession, and 

distribution charges. His appeal is pending. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 2 
2017. It is during these two meetings that the exchange of heroin 

allegedly occurred, and it is 6n this day,.November 29, that 

Baggett is charged with the possession of heroin and with making 

three telephbne calls to facilitate the distribution of the drug. 

II. 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

In assessing the sufficiency of the evid~nce for a criminal 

conviction, we must view all the evidence, both direct and 

circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the Government. 

Taken together wi~h all.reasonable inferences to be drawri from 

such evidence, we must determine whether the evidence is 

sufficient to establish 9uilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser 

v. United States, 315 u~s. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. 

Blandin, 784 F.2~ 1048, 1050 (10th Cir. 1986). In addition, ''our 

• review here does not include assessing the credibility of 

witnesses; that task is reserved for the jury.'' United States v. 

Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1485 (10th Cir. 1989). 

It is not necessary that the Government have direct evidence 

to support a conviction for po9session. But where, as in this 

case, the Government fails to seize and analyze the chemical 

composition of the alleged narcotic substance, there must be 

enough circumstantial evidence to support an inference that the 

defendant actually did possess the drugs in question. See,~, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 3 
United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1348-50 (8th Cir. 1979); 

United States v. Iacopelli, 483 F.2d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 1973). 

The circumstantial evidence that Baggett actually possessed 

the drugs in question is not strong. The three telephone calls of 

November 29 do make clear that she arranged for a purchase of a· 

controlled substance on that day. Additionally, some four months 

laier, on March 31, 1988, Baggett confessed to two police officers 

that during November of 1987 she had used "about a half a pill or 

balloon of heroin a day and that towards the end of the month she 

was up to using a ·whole pill or balloon of heroin per day." Rec., 

vol. XVI, at 2194. However, the Government must put forth some 

evidence to show that Baggett actually possessed heroin on the day 

in question. Such evidence may include 

"evidence of the physical appearance of the substance 

involved in the transaction, evidence that the substance 

produced the expected effects when sampled by someone 

familiar with the illicit drug, evidence that the 

substance was used in the same manner as the illicit 

drug, testimony that a high price was paid in cash for 

the substance, evidence tha~ transactions involving the 

substance were carried on with s•crecy or devioushess, 

and evidence that the substance was called by the name 

of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in 

[her] presence •..• " 

United States v. Dolan, 544 F.2d 1219, 1221 (4th Cir. 1976). See 

also United States v. Scott, 725 F.2d 43, 44-46 (4th Cir. 1984). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 4 
Little of the relevant information listed in Dolan has been . . 

presented as evidence here. Both Detective Janice Stupka and 

Agent Lonnie Wright observed a meeting between Steve Daniels and a 

"white female." The first meeting took place inside Daniels' car 

and lasted for about three minutes; the second occurred outside 

the vehicles, and consisted of only "a brief contact with each 

other." Rec., vol. XV, at 2018. Neither Wright nor Stupka saw 

any money or narcotics exchanged at either of the two meetings. 

Rec., vol. XI, at 1274-75; rec., vol~ XV, at 2027. No witness for 

the Government testified to seeing a drug exchange between Daniels 

and Baggett, or to seeing Baggett with heroin at any time on 

November 29. T6e Government put forward no evidence other tha~ 

Stupka and Wright's testimony to show that a transaction actually 

took place. 

If the prosecution is not going to present direct evidence of 

drug possession, its circumstantial evidence must include some 

testimony linking defendant to an observed substance that a jury 

can infer to be a narcotic~ The Government here has presented us 

with no case in which a conviction was upheld without evidence 

that the defendant possessed a substance and that the substance· 

was a narcotic. Courts typically require much stronger evidence 

before holding it sufficient to meet the Government's burden of 

proof. See,~, Scott, 725 F.2d at 46 (finding that "[e]very 

fact listed in Dolan for establishing circumstantially the illegal 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 5 
character of the [substance] possessed by the defendant was 

present"). 

In Iacopelli, a conviction was affirmed although no substance 

was actually observed at the time the defendant allegedly obtained 

possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation or 

deception. 483 F.2d at 161. But in that case, records showed 

that the defendant, a pharmacist, had ordered a box of a 

controlled substance, sodium·secobarbital; a company "traffic 

manager" had observed the delivery of a box with outside 

descriptions consistent with the order; records reflected that 

sodium secobarbital had, in fact, been delivered; and records 

revealed that the defendant had been the one to pick up the box. 

The defendant also later gave a witness a capsule-filled bottle 

with a "label denoting the contents as sodium secobarbital and 

bearing the same control number as the control number on the 

sealed box." Id. Such strong circumstantial evidence is not 

present in this case. 

In sum, we conclude that the Government's evidence is 

insufficient to sustain the possession conviction. 2 

2 The Government's case has several other weaknesses. Agent 

Wright was over a block away from the place of Daniels' and 

Baggett's alleged transaction, and he could not describe the 

"white female" with any detail. Officer Stupka was closer to the 

two people and she could identify Daniels, but she was unable to 

identify the observed white female as Barbara Baggett. See rec., 

vol. XI, at 1272. Additionally, both Stupka and Wright 

incorrectly described the color of the car later identified as 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 6 
III. 

FACILITATION OF HEROIN DISTRIBUTION 

Section 843(b) prohibits the use of "any communication 

facility •••• in causing or facilitating the commission of any 

act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this 

subchapter." (Emphasis added). Defendant was convicted of three 

counts of violating this statute when she used the telephone to 

order heroin for her personal use. The Government concedes that 

the simple possession of heroin under section 844(a) is a 

misdemeanor, not a felony, but it contends that defendant's 

actions nevertheless constitute a violation of section 843(b) 

because her use of the phone facilitated the distribution of 

heroin by her supplier in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l), 

which is a felony. 

• 

In support of its position, the Government argues that 

"without customers to purchase drugs and assist in the 

distribution or sale, the drug dealers would go out of business." 

Government Brief at 78. While this observation may be true, the 

Government's further assertion that one who uses a telephone to 

facilitate their simple possession of a controlled substance 

transforms the crime into a felony does not comport with the 

Baggett's. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 7 
legislative history of the statute, which clearly places mere 

"customers" in the m.isdemeanor category: "illegal possession of 

controlled drugs by an individual for [her] own use is a 

misdemeanor." See 1970 u.s~ Code Cong. & Admin. News 4577 

(emphasis added); see also United States v. Swiderski, 548 F.2d 

445, 449 (2d Cir. 1977) ("the statutory drug enforcement scheme 

..• draws a sharp distinction between drug offenses of a 

commercial nature and illicit personal use of controlled 

substances"). 

The Government's position that section 843(b) envisions both 

seller and consumer falling under its strictures is also 

inconsistent with the section's interpretation by the courts. The 

Government relies upon our holding in United States v. Watson, 594 

F.2d 1330 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 (1979), for its 

assertion that section 843(b) do~s not distinguish between those .. who purchase for "further distribution as opposed to a [purchase] 

for personal consumption." Government Brief at 79. The 

Government's reliance on Watson is misplaced. In Watson, we 

upheld a conviction for use of a telephone to facilitate 

distribution of narcotics, but only after concluding that "there 

was proof that the appellants, as street dealers, were using the 

teleph'.one to obtain heroin or cocaine for resale." Watson, 594 

F.2d at 1343 (emphasis added). Watson involved defendants whose 

underlying crime was a felony, not a misdemeanor, so it bears 

little relation to the present case. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 8 
Of those cases addressing a mere buyer's use of the 

telephone, all have held that one guilty of only a misdemeanor 

cannot be convicted under section 843(b). In United States v. 

Martin, 599 F.2d 880 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962 

(1979), one of several defendants, Stephen Davenport, was 

acquitted of the charges of conspiracy to distribute and to 

possess with the intent to distribute, but was convicted of 

attempted possession of cocaine or heroin, and of use of a 

telephone to facilita~e a conspiracy under section 843(b). In 

reversing Davenport's section 843(b) conviction, the court 

observed that ''[i]n each case in which we have upheld a conviction 

for facilitation, the defendant's role in the distribution of 

drugs has been far more substantial than that of a buyer for 

personal consumption." Id. at 888. The court conclu.ded that 

"a mere customer's contribution to the business he 

patronizes does not constitute the facilitation 

envisioned by Congress .... The scheme of the Act 

shows that Congress intended to draw a sharp distinction 

between distributors and simple possessors, both in the 

categorization of substantive crimes and in the resultant penalties .... To hold that persons who merely 

buy drugs for their personal use are on equal footing 

with distributors by virtue of the facilitation statute 

would undermine this statutory distinction." 

Id. at 889 (citation omitted). See also United States v. Van 

Buren, 804 F.2d 888, 892 (6th Cir. 1986) ("evidence of the 

purchase of cocaine for personal use does not establish use of the 

telephone to further the conspiracy"); United States v. Brown, 761 

-9-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 9 
F.2d 1272, 1278 (9th Cir. 1985} ("use of a telephone to order 

cocaine for personal use is •. not a lesser-included offense; 

indeed, it is no offense at all''}; United States v. Adler, 862 

F. 2d 210, 215 ( 9th Cir. 1988} ( distinguishing a "personal use" 

case from one which "[s]trong indicia suggested that a conspiracy 

was afoot and that appellant was participating in that 

conspiracy"}. 

We agree witn these courts and hold that because Baggett used 

the telephone •only to order drugs for personal use, a misdemeanor, 

she cannot be convicted under section 843(b). 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

We reverse the conviction for simple possession under section 

844(a) for insufficiency of evidence, and we reverse the 

conviction for using the telephone to facilitate the commission of 

a felony under section 843(b) because, as a matter of law, that 

provision does not apply to one who uses the telephone to purchase 

a controlled substance for personal use. 

REVERSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 88-2767 Document: 010110136473 Date Filed: 11/28/1989 Page: 10