Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03078/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03078-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zachary M. Rockelman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States C-ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PRICE w. SPEECE and 

ZACHARY M. ROCKELMAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JAN 2 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 92-3077 and 92-3078 

(D. C. No. 91-40026-01/02) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and BRATTON, District 

Judge** 

Defendants were convicted, after a jury trial, of possession 

of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 

84l{a){l) and one count of conspiracy to possess marijuana with 

intent to distribute in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 846. Defendants 

appeal the denial of their motion to suppress, the denial of their 

motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Speedy Trial Act, 

and several evidentiary and sentencing decisions of the trial 

court. They also argue the evidence presented at trial was 

insufficient to support the jury's verdict. 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Howard C. Bratton, Senior District Judge of the 

United States District Court for the District of New Me xico, 

sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 1 
Motion to suppress 

On June 21, 1991, agents of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation 

(KBI) arrested defendants while executing a search warrant of an 

area surrounding a marijuana patch situated on federal public land. 

Defendants were charged under state law and released on bond. On 

July 9, 1991, federal agents arrested defendant Speece at his 

residence, and on July 10, 1991, the agents conducted a search of 

the residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendants contend 

the first search warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity 

because it authorized a search of 320 acres of public land. 

Defendants further contend they were arrested at the hunting area 

without probable cause. Defendant Speece contends the search of 

his residence was tainted by the illegality of the earlier search 

and seizure, and that on July 9th, the agents illegally searched 

his residence without a warrant. 

1. The June 21st warrant: We review the trial court's 

conclusion that the warrant was not overbroad and did not lack 

particularity de novo. United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 600 

( 10th Cir. 1988) • The relevant portion of the warrant in this case 

provides for the search of: 

A tract of land described as: the North One-half of Section 

Five (5), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Fourteen (14) 

East, in Osage County, Kansas. Also described as a field 

approximately 150 yards South of highway K-170 on Cherry 

Creek. 

The search is to include any caves, tents, lean-tos, 

sheds, and outbuildings together with all travel or stock 

trailers that foot trails lead to and from the marijuana 

fields; also water lines to their source. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 2 
The search is to include any and all persons present at 

the time of the search and any vehicles located on the 

property. 

Defendants argue the warrant is facially invalid because it 

authorized the search of any person, structure, and vehicle within 

320 acres. A search warrant must describe the place to be searched 

with sufficient particularity ~or the executing officer to locate 

and identify it with reasonable effort. United States v. Dorrough, 

927 F.2d 498, 500 (10th Cir. 1991). We find that although the 

warrant begins by identifying a 320 acre tract of land, it narrows 

the area to a "field approximately 150 yards South of highway K-170 

on Cherry Creek" and includes only structures found near trails 

leading to the marijuana fields. The warrant did not authorize the 

search of the entire 320 acres: the trial court correctly denied 

the motion to suppress on this basis. 

2. Probable cause to arrest - June 21st: Defendants contend 

the officers arrested them without probable cause prior to 

conducting their search pursuant to the warrant. We review the 

trial court's decision that there was probable cause to arrest de 

novo . See United States v. Dodds, 946 F.2d 726, 727 (10th Cir. 

1991) (legal issue of probable c a use reviewed de novo). The facts 

are not in dispute. 

The KBI agents had located the marijuana field prior to June 

21st after receiving a tip from a citizen informant. They viewed 

the field from an airplane, walked through the area, and located 

the campsite prior to obtaining the warrant. On June 20th, they 

saw two men enter the field and the campsite, the only one in the 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 3 
area, look through the tools and walk around the marijuana field. 

The officers saw no one enter or leave the area until they secured 

and executed the search warrant. 

Law enforcement officers have probable cause to arrest when 

the facts and circumstances within their knowledge are sufficient 

to warrant a prudent man in believing an offense has been or is 

being committed. United States v. Miller, 532 F.2d 1335, 1337 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 839 (1976) . We find the facts 

and circumstances recited above were sufficient for the officers to 

believe the defendants were involved with the cultivation of the 

marijuana, and under the circumstances there was probable cause to 

arrest them at the hunting area. 

3. The July 9th "se2.rch": When the officers arrested Speece 

at his home on July 9th, one officer took photographs o f items on 

the property. Speece concedes the officers were lawfully on the 

premises and did not seize any items on that day. However, the 

officers used the photographs and their observations to apply for 

the search warrant executed the following day. Speece argues on 

appeal the officers exceeded the scope of a lawful protective 

sweep, and therefore the Court should suppress all evidence seized 

pursuant to the warrant. The trial court found that anything the 

officers observed was admissible under the plain view doctrine. 

The court gave defendant the opportunity to object to any 

photographs taken of items not in plain view. By not objecting, 

defendant has conceded that all the items photographed and observed 

were in plain view. Since the officers were lawfully on the 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 4 
premises, their use of photographs of items in plain view was also 

lawful. Cf. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). 

Speedy Trial 

We have reviewed the record and find no violation of the 

Speedy Trial Act. our review accords with the trial court• s 

thorough recitation of the excludable time under 18 u. s. c. § 

3161(h), and we find that the court tried defendants well within 

the 70 day time limit allowed by the Act. 

sufficiency of the Evidence 

Both defendants argue the evidence was insufficient to prove 

they constructively possessed the marijuana plants found in the 

field, and defendant Speece argues the evidence was also 

insufficient to prove he constructively possessed the marijuana 

found at his residence . To determine whether the evidence was 

insufficient, we view all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, 

in the light most favorable to the government. United states v. 

Culpepper, 834 F . 2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 1987). The evidence is 

sufficient to support the verdict if, when viewed in this light, a 

reasonable jury could find the defendants guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id. 

The government can establish constructive possession by 

circumstantial evidence if there is a sufficient nexus between the 

defendant and the contraband. I.!L.. at 882. We find there was 

sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The KBI 

officers found both defendants camping at a campsite connected to 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 5 
a field of marijuana growing on federal land. The officers found 

a package of Miracle-Gro and Fertil-Mix near the tent and trash 

bags, Zig-Zag papers, and a small amount of marijuana on Speece's 

person. In the marijuana field, the officers found other 

cultivating materials and root stimulator. Defendant Rockelman's 

former girlfriend, Susan Winter, testified she had taken defendants 

to the area of the marijuana fields twice, she had heard defendants 

discuss the lack of rain, defendant Speece told her not to let 

anyone know where they were, and she was with defendant Rockelman 

when he bought an axe. She also testified that sometime prior to 

June 20th while she was working at a garden store, defendant 

Rockelman had come to the store asking for a product to prevent 

grasshoppers from eating plants. She recommended Diazanon, and 

Rockelman purchased some. 

Defendant Speece's residence contained a mobile home, a 

storage shed, and a house. The officers found marijuana and books 

about growing marijuana in the mobile home. They found pots for 

starting plants in the storage shed and root stimulator and 

Miracle-Gro near the shed. They found trash bags containing 

marijuana, scales, a magazine with articles about growing 

marijuana, and pill bottles labeled with Speece's name containing 

marijuana seeds and residue. 

This circumstantial evidence was enough for the jury to find 

beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants possessed the 

marijuana found at the field and that defendant Speece possessed 

the marijuana found at his residence. See id. 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 6 
Rulings at Trial 

1. Reopening of the Evidence: After the parties rested on a 

Friday, the government moved to reopen the evidence Monday morning. 

During the weekend, the Marshals Service had located an important 

government witness, Susan Winter, defendant Rockelman' s former 

girlfriend, who had disappeared after she had agreed to testify. 

The trial court granted the motion and allowed the testimony. We 

review the court's decision whether or not to reopen evidence for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Bolt, 776 F.2d 1463, 1471 

(10th Cir. 1985). We find no abuse of discretion here. The 

government presented its motion at the earliest possible time and 

had a reasonable explanation for its failure to present Ms. 

Winter's testimony in its case-in-chief. The evidence was relevant 

and admissible and assisted the jury in determining defendants' 

guilt or innocence. Finally, defendants were not prejudiced. They 

knew Ms. Winter was a possible witness and had the opportunity to 

interview her prior to her testifying. See United States v. 

Larson, 596 F.2d 759, 778 (8th Cir. 1978) (listing factors). 

2. Violation of Sequestration Order: The trial court allowed 

two witnesses to testify on rebuttal who had been in the courtroom 

during prior testimony although defendants had invoked Rule 615, 

the Rule providing for the exclusion of witnesses. We will not 

reverse on this basis unless the trial court abused its discretion 

in allowing the testimony or the violation of the Rule resulted in 

prejudice to the defendants. United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 

373, 376 (10th cir. 1986). 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 7 
Agent Dixon and Agent David Adams both gave rebuttal testimony 

on Friday, after sitting in the courtroom listening to testimony 

after they had each testified on direct. Defendants objected to 

their testimony, but the trial court advised counsel they should 

have pointed out their presence earlier because there was always 

the possibility of rebuttal testimony. The court found the 

government had not acted in bad faith. We find no abuse of 

discretion and the defendants have pointed to no prejudice 

resulting from the allowance of this rebuttal testimony. 

After Susan Winter testified on Monday, the government called 

Agent Bruce Adams to impeach her testimony although he had been in 

the courtroom during Ms. Winter's testimony. Agent Adams had 

interviewed Ms. Winter just after the defendants' arrest and was 

recalled because her testimony differed from her earlier statement. 

Defendants claim prejudice because Ms. Winter's earlier statements 

were inculpatory and damaging to defendants• cases. This is not 

the sort of prejudice requiring reversal. Agent Adams would have 

given the same testimony had he not heard Ms. Winters' testimony. 

Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and no prejudice 

resulting from the allowance of this testimony. See United States 

v. Shurn, 849 F.2d 1090, 1094 (8th Cir. 1988). 

3. Rule 613 (b) violation: Defendants argue that Agent 

Adams's testimony regarding Ms. Winter's prior inconsistent 

statements was inadmissible because the government failed to give 

Ms. Winter the opportunity to explain or deny the statements. We 

review the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of this 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 8 
evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Alexander, 849 

F.2d 1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 1988). We find no abuse of discretion. 

The court gave defendants the opportunity to recall Ms. Winter and 

question her about the inconsistent statements, and defendants 

declined to do so. See United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244, 

254-56 (1st Cir. 1976) (foundation for impeachment by prior 

inconsistent statements desirable but not absolutely required under 

the rule if court gives opportunity to explain or deny at some time 

during trial). 

Sentencing 

Defendant Speece argues that the statutory scheme found in 21 

u.s.c. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii) equating 100 kilograms or more of 

marijuana with 100 or more marijuana plants and mandating the same 

minimum sentence for possession of either quantity violates equal 

protection and due process. We have foreclosed this argument by 

our decision in United States v. Lee, 957 F.2d 778 (10th Cir. 

1992). 

Defendant Rockelman argues the trial court should have granted 

him a downward departure because of his youthful appearance and 

susceptibility to attack in prison. We lack jurisdiction to 

consider this issue on appeal . See United States v. Davis, 900 

F.2d 1524, 1528-30 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. ct. 155 (1990) 

(refusal to exercise discretion to depart downward not appealable 

unless in violation of law or as result of incorrect guideline 

application). 

9 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 9 
Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above , we affirm the judgments of 

conviction entered in this case . 

10 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Howard C. Bratton 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3078 Document: 010110159280 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 10