Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03408/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Carl H. Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

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

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3408

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Carl H. Wilson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 27, 2006

Filed: November 7, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Carl H. Wilson guilty of aiding and abetting the distribution of a

substance containing 5 or more grams of cocaine base, and possessing a substance

containing cocaine base. The district court1

 entered judgment upon the verdict and

sentenced Wilson to a total of 76 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release.

On appeal, Wilson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the aiding-andabetting offense, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2006 Entry ID: 2107398
-2-

We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and giving the verdict the

benefit of all reasonable inferences. See United States v. Funchess, 422 F.3d 698,

700-01 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1452 (2006). Wilson’s conviction for

aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base required proof that he

(1) associated himself with the distribution of cocaine base, (2) participated in the

activity as a thing that he wished to bring about, and (3) sought by his action to make

it succeed. See United States v. Mendoza, 421 F.3d 663, 668-69 (8th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).

In relevant part, the evidence at Wilson’s trial consisted of the testimony of law

enforcement officials who were involved in an investigation of Wilson’s father’s

residence, reputed to be a place where drugs were sold, in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

One officer, whose testimony included an in-court identification of Wilson, worked

with a confidential informant (CI) to make a controlled purchase of 7.6 grams of

cocaine base on August 13, 2002. The officer went with the CI into the residence, and

observed the CI--who created an audiotape of the transaction--return from the back

part of the house, accompanied by Wilson. The officer handed the CI $500 after she

gave him a small plastic bag containing cocaine base, and the CI in turn gave the

money to Wilson, who counted it and returned to the back room. Wilson complains

that the traditional safeguards of a controlled drug buy were not employed in this case,

because the CI was not searched before and after the transaction, and the officer did

not maintain visual surveillance of her at all times. Wilson also complains that the

passage of time between the drug transaction and Wilson’s trial undermined the

officer’s in-court identification of him, and that an audio transcript of the transaction

did not prove Wilson’s knowledge of the drug transaction and was inconsistent with

the officer’s testimony concerning where people were standing at various times. We

reject these arguments to the extent Wilson is simply challenging the credibility of

witnesses. See United States v. Dabney, 367 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2004)

(reviewing court does not usurp jury’s role in judging witnesses’ credibility when

Appellate Case: 05-3408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2006 Entry ID: 2107398
-3-

evaluating sufficiency of evidence); United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 869 (8th

Cir. 1994) (jury must resolve conflicts in testimony and judge credibility of

witnesses). In addition, we believe the evidence was sufficient to establish Wilson’s

association with and participation in the drug sale. See Mendoza, 421 F.3d at 669

(government was not required to prove actual sale by defendant in order to impose

liability on aiding-and-abetting theory); United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859, 863

(8th Cir. 2005) (jury verdict may be based on circumstantial as well as direct

evidence).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3408 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2006 Entry ID: 2107398