Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03154/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven A. Bowen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. .. 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

J L 2 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appel lee, 

v. 

STEVEN A. BOWEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk 

No. 90-3154 

(D.C. No. 89-20079-02) 

(D. Kans.) 

Julie A. Robinson, Assistant United States Attorney, (Lee Thompson, 

United states Attorney with her on the brief), Kansas City, Kansas, 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Kenneth Morgens, (John W. Frankum on the brief) , Frankum and 

Scoville, Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge, MCWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

KANE, Senior District Judge** 

KANE, Senior District Judge 

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

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

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

judicata or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., United States Senior District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-3154 Document: 010110129380 Date Filed: 07/22/1991 Page: 1 
- 4 

The sole issue presented in this case is whether the trial 

court erred in overruling defendant Steven A. Bower's motion for 

severance of defendants. To find error, it would be necessary for 

the panel to reverse United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656 (10th 

Cir. 1989), and United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S. Ct. 2921, 91 L. Ed. 2d 549, 

1986). We decline to do so and affirm. 

A timely notice of appeal was filed by Bowen on May 17, 1990. 

Jurisdiction is admitted. 

Steven A. Bowen was found guilty by a jury of the one count of 

distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 845(a) (redesignated as 21 U.S.C. § 860). 

He was tried jointly with his brother-in-law, Neil W. White. White 

was charged with six counts of cocaine distribution and one count 

of use of a firearm during a distribution of cocaine. Bowen and 

White were charged jointly in one count. 

Bowen appeals the denial of his motion to sever the joint 

count from the other six counts against White. Bowen made the 

appropriate pre-trial motion to sever, which was renewed and argued 

before trial and again at the close of all evidence. The motion 

was denied each time. 

White sold 27. 97 grams of cocaine to Guy Caster, a DEA 

informant and an undercover DEA officer on July 19, 1989. This 

transaction was tape recorded and witnessed by the undercover 

agent. on August 18, 1989, Caster purchased 28 .11 grams of cocaine 

from White while the undercover agent waited outside. This 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3154 Document: 010110129380 Date Filed: 07/22/1991 Page: 2 
transaction was also tape recorded. On September 12, 1989, White 

sold 27.88 grams of cocaine to Caster and the undercover agent in 

another tape recorded transaction during which a loaded firearm was 

shown to the undercover agent. On September 25, 1989, White sold 

27.2 grams of cocaine to Caster in another tape recorded transaction. The house where the transaction took place was under 

surveillance by DEA agents. 

On October 2, 1989, Caster advised White that he wanted to buy 

as much cocaine as possible before he left town. White told Caster 

that he had two or three ounces at the house but that his brotheri n-law would be bringing the rest. White distributed about 70.22 

grams of cocaine to the informant before Bowen's arrival. This 

part of the transaction was tape recorded and the house was under 

surveillance. The tape recorder ran out before Bowen arrived. 

Several agents saw Bowen arrive at the house carrying a 

cardboard box. Caster saw packages of cocaine in the box when 

Bowen entered the house. Bowen and White went into the spare 

bedroom area and, within a few minutes, called Caster back to the 

bedroom and bathroom area. Caster heard Bowen say something to the 

effect of, "Let's see how he does with this much and whether he 

screws this up before we give him more." When Caster entered the 

back bedroom and bathroom area, White handed him 10 ounces of 

cocaine packaged in three separate bags and told him there was 

three ounces, three ounces and two ounces in the bags. Bowen 

quickly corrected White saying that there were four ounces, four 

ounces and two ounces in the bags. Caster told Bowen and White 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3154 Document: 010110129380 Date Filed: 07/22/1991 Page: 3 
-, I 

that he would return around 3: 00 p.m. with the money for the 

cocaine. Bowen and White said that would be fine. Caster left and 

then Bowen left. 

At around 2:30 p.m., or 30 minutes earlier than Caster told 

Bowen and White he would bring the money to them, Bowen returned to 

White's house. 

White was convicted on all but the firearms count. Bowen was 

convicted of the one count with which he was charged. 

In order for a defendant to establish reversible error in the 

denial of a motion to sever, he must show actual prejudice. Bowen 

argues that he would have had a better chance of acquittal in a 

separate trial. Such is not sufficient to show actual prejudice. 

Bowen also complains of negative "spillover effect" from the 

greater guantum of evidence against White. As we said in Hack, 

however, severance is not required merely because evidence against 

a co-defendant is more damaging than evidence against the moving 

defendant. 782 F.2d at 870. Nor, as we said in Cardall, is actual 

prejudice established because the co-defendant is charged in a 

number of counts and the defendant in only one. 885 F.2d at 668. 

The gist of actual prejudice is shown where the evidence is so 

confusing that the jury cannot comply with its instruction to give 

separate personal consideration to the case of each individual 

defendant. The jury in this case was so instructed and no showing 

has been made even to suggest it did not follow the instruction as 

given. 

The nature of the indictment and the evidence offered against 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3154 Document: 010110129380 Date Filed: 07/22/1991 Page: 4 
., I 

Bowen provided no basis for confusion. The indictment charged 

White with seven counts and Bowen with one. White was charged with 

six distributions occurring on six separate dates. Bowen was 

charged with only one of these distributions. None of the 

distributions occurred on the same dates. The sixth transaction 

was tape recorded and surveilled; it is evident that Bowen was 

present and participating. The other five transactions, in which 

White alone is charged, were also tape recorded and it is evident 

that Steven Bowen was not present. The jury could have had no 

difficulty in isolating the involvement of each defendant. 

Finally, separate verdict forms were given which caused the 

jury to isolate the charges and evidence against each defendant. 

Given the nature of the evidence, the separate charges, the proper 

instruction of law and the separate forms of verdict, there is no 

basis for showing either error in denying the motion to sever or 

actual prejudice resulting therefrom. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-3154 Document: 010110129380 Date Filed: 07/22/1991 Page: 5