Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01603/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01603-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Jerrel Ausler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1603

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jason Jerrel Ausler, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2004

 Filed: January 26, 2005 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Arkansas highway patrol officers stopped Jason Ausler's automobile after the

officers observed him speeding and weaving. During the stop, the officers discovered

seven kilogram-sized “bricks” of powder cocaine on the front passenger-side

floorboard. At a federal laboratory, a forensic chemist determined that the seven

packages contained 6,805 grams of powder cocaine. He also found 30.7 grams of

crack cocaine tucked inside one or two of the bricks. Ausler was charged with two

counts of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count One alleged that he “knowingly and

intentionally possessed with intent to distribute . . . [powder] cocaine.” Count Two

alleged that he “knowingly and intentionally possessed with intent to distribute . . .

Appellate Case: 04-1603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859730 
1

The HONORABLE STEPHEN M. REASONER, United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Arkansas. To our great regret, Judge Reasoner passed

away on August 14, 2004, after a long illness.

-2-

cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine.” A jury convicted Ausler of both counts.

The district court1

 sentenced him to concurrent terms of 480 months in prison on each

count. Ausler appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly

possessed crack cocaine. We affirm.

At trial, the patrol officers testified to finding the seven packages partially

covered by a sweatshirt but otherwise in plain view. They also testified that Ausler

was the sole occupant of the rented automobile and that he was observed leaning over

to the passenger side before being stopped. After the stop, Ausler could not produce

a driver’s license, identified himself as the person who rented the auto but misspelled

the name, and gave a driver’s license number that proved to be false. After his arrest,

Ausler said to one of the officers, “If I had to do it all over again, I’d have done it

different.” Regarding the crack cocaine hidden inside one or two of the bricks, a

forensic chemist testified that he cut into those bricks after noticing “obvious

lump[s]” and found a separate, smaller plastic-wrapped package of crack. The

chemist further testified that, in his experience analyzing hundreds of controlled

substances, it is “not unheard of” to find smaller packets of crack packaged inside

bricks of powder cocaine. The defense presented no witnesses or other evidence;

indeed, Ausler so disrupted the trial proceedings that he was eventually removed from

the courtroom.

The district court instructed the jury that it could convict Ausler on Count Two

if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he “intended to be in

possession of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine.” During deliberations, the

jury sent a note asking to hear the forensic chemist’s testimony again. The court

assembled the jury in open court, and the court reporter read the chemist’s testimony.

Appellate Case: 04-1603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859730 
2

It is well-settled that an indictment charging the defendant with separate

violations of § 841(a)(1) for simultaneous possession of different controlled

substances “is not multiplicitous and does not violate double jeopardy.” United

States v. Vargas-Castillo, 329 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases).

-3-

In a second note, the jury asked whether it could “reach a verdict on one count but be

hung on the other.” The court answered that question in the affirmative. One-half

hour later, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts.

Ausler does not appeal his conviction for knowingly possessing with intent to

distribute five kilograms or more of powder cocaine. But he does challenge his

conviction on Count Two, arguing that the government failed to prove that he knew

the bricks of powder cocaine contained one or more smaller packages of crack

cocaine. Our standard of review is narrow: “On appeal, we view the evidence and

all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict.

We will reverse the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal only if no

construction of the evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.” United States v.

Flores, 362 F.3d 1030, 1035 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

The government argues that the overwhelming proof of Ausler’s knowing

possession of powder cocaine was sufficient for the jury to convict him of both

counts. Because the statute prohibits knowing or intentional possession of “a

controlled substance,” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), this court and others have held that the

government must prove only that the defendant knew he possessed a “controlled

substance,” not the specific type of controlled substance actually in his possession.

See United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531

U.S. 1200 (2001); United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2003) (collecting

cases). But that principle does not apply here. The indictment separately charged

Ausler with knowing possession of powder and crack cocaine,2

 and the district court

instructed the jury, without objection by the government, that it must find Ausler

“intended to be in possession of . . . crack” to convict him on Count Two. When

Appellate Case: 04-1603 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859730 
-4-

given, “such an instruction . . . becomes the law of the case.” United States v. Tapio,

634 F.2d 1092, 1094 (8th Cir. 1980). Thus, we must determine whether there was

sufficient evidence that Ausler knowingly or intentionally possessed 30.7 grams of

crack, which is admittedly a distribution quantity of that controlled substance.

The strongest evidence supporting the jury’s verdict was Ausler's exclusive

dominion and control over a partially hidden distribution quantity of two controlled

substances. The bricks of powder cocaine were tape-wrapped, yet Ausler concedes

their location and contents were sufficient to support a finding that he knowingly

possessed powder cocaine. See United States v. Cortez, 935 F.2d 135, 143 (8th Cir.

1991) (“complete and sole control and dominion over” a vehicle containing hidden

marijuana was sufficient evidence of knowing possession), cert. denied, 502 U.S.

1062 (1992). In this case, the smaller quantity of crack was hidden inside the tapewrapped bricks of powder cocaine. If the crack had been hidden in a secret

compartment or concealed within a large quantity of packing materials, rather than

within a second controlled substance, Cortez confirms that a rational jury could find

knowing possession of that specific controlled substance. Ausler cites no case

supporting the counter-intuitive proposition that the evidence of knowledge becomes

insufficient merely because the controlled substance was hidden within a second type

of controlled substance. Moreover, the forensic chemist testified that the small

packages of crack made an “obvious lump” on the outside of the bricks, concrete

evidence that Ausler knew the bricks contained more than powder cocaine. The jury's

request to rehear that testimony demonstrates that it gave careful attention to the

question whether Ausler knowingly possessed the crack cocaine. Like the district

court, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's resolution of

that issue.

Ausler did not object to the Presentence Investigation Report nor raise any

sentencing issue on appeal. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1603 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Entry ID: 1859730