Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06352/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06352-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Frances Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

1v1AR · 2 0 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MARY FRANCES BENNETT, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6352 

(D.C. No. CR-89-132-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and BARRE'l'T and T.ACBA, Circuit 

Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Mary Frances Bennett appeals from her 

conviction for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation 

to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 

u.s.c. S 924(c)(l) and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. S 846. Defendant asserts there was 

insufficient evidence to convict her of violating section 

924(c)(l) and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. She also 

contends the district court improperly instructed the jury on the 

section 924(c)(l) charge. We affirm. 

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on which the 

jury conviction rests, we evaluate the evidence in the light most 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6352 Document: 010110031230 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 1 
favorable to the government. United States~ Levario, 877 F.2d 

1483, 1485 (10th Cir. 1989). All reasonable inferences and 

credibility choices are made in favor of the jury's conclusions. 

United States~ Massey, 687 F.2d 1348, 1354 (10th Cir. 1982). 

The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis other 

than guilt; it must only be sufficient for a reasonable jury to 

find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States~ Culpepper, 

834 F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 1987). Finally, our review does not 

include an assessment of the credibility of witnesses; that task 

is reserved for the jury. Levario, 877 F.2d at 1485; United 

States~ Alonso, 790 F.2d 1489, 1492 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Our review of the record convinces us there was sufficient 

evidence to convict defendant for violating section 924(c)(l). In 

United States~ McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 675 (10th Cir. 1989), 

this court stated the "use" element of section 924(c)(l) is 

satisfied when: (1) the defendant had "ready access" to the 

firearm, and (2) the firearm "was an integral part of his criminal 

undertaking and its availability increased the likelihood that the 

criminal undertaking would succeed." This court explained in 

United States~ Parrish, No. 90-4001, slip op. at 8-9 (10th Cir. 

Feb. 13, 1991), that a defendant has ready access to a firearm if 

it is available to him in the vicinity in which the drug 

trafficking offense takes place. In the present case, officers 

found defendant in the bedroom of her residence with two firearms 

within her reach. Two of defendant's employees, Janice Taylor and 

Roslinde Anderson, testified that defendant kept drugs and money 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6352 Document: 010110031230 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 2 
in this bedroom as part of her drug operation. The first part of 

the McKinnell test is therefore satisfied. 

There is also sufficient evidence to satisfy the second part 

of the McKinnell test. Detective Sergeant Don Hull, an 

experienced police officer, testified that drug dealers possess 

firearms to prevent "rip offs" from other drug dealers or drug 

users. Although defendant testified she possessed the firearms to 

protect herself from her ex-husband, the jury gave greater weight 

to the police officer's testimony. The officer's testimony was 

sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the firearm was an 

integral part of the drug operation. See United States L.. 

Henning, 906 F.2d 1392, 1398 (10th Cir. 1990) (officer's testimony 

concerning use of firearms by drug dealers sufficient despite 

defendant's testimony to the contrary). The jury's verdict on the 

section 924(c)(l) charges is supported by sufficient evidence. 

The conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base also 

withstands defendant's challenges. Both Traylor and Anderson 

testified they had sold drugs at defendant's direction. They also 

claimed they were present when defendant received drug deliveries. 

Defendant contends the testimony of these witnesses is not 

credible because Traylor and Anderson used and dealt drugs and had 

received inonunity in exchange for their testimony. She also 

alleges their testimony was uncorroborated and was contradicted by 

the testimony of the witnesses she presented in her defense. In 

particular, defendant notes Traylor and Anderson testified 

defendant had been dealing drugs out of her bedroom the day the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6352 Document: 010110031230 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 3 
arrests were made. The police, however, found no cocaine in the 

bedroom. 

As noted above, this court will not evaluate the crediblity 

of the witnesses in determining whether there is sufficient 

evidence to support a jury's verdict. All reasonable inferences 

and credibility choices will be made in favor of the jury's 

verdict. In this case, the jury chose to believe Traylor and 

Anderson's testimony and disregard the testimony of defendant. We 

have no basis for disturbing this determination on appeal. 

Finally, we find no error in the instructions given to the 

jury concerning the section 924(c)(l) charge. Defendant failed to 

challenge the instructions below and therefore this court reviews 

only for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 30; United States Y..:.. 

Solomon, 565 F.2d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 1978). In United States Y..:.. 

Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit held 

the district court's failure to give any instruction concerning 

the relational element of the section 924(c)(l) offense was plain 

error where there is a significant possibility the jury might have 

acquitted if it had considered the relational element. The 

instruction given in this case, however, did address the 

relational element. It stated defendant could be convicted only 

if she used or carried a firearm "during the commission of the 

drug trafficking crime." In United States Y..:.. Bullock, 914 F.2d 

1413, 1416 (10th Cir. 1990), this court approved a similar 

instruction, noting "[i]f they [the firearms] were used in the 

commission of the crimes they were certainly used 'in relation to' 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6352 Document: 010110031230 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 4 
. the crimes. The charge is in equivalent language to the statutory 

language, and this is sufficient." 

Defendant also contends the trial court erred in failing to 

provide an instruction defining the term "carry." The purported 

definitional error relates to the failure to express the 

relational element as to the "carry" component of the statutory 

offense. However, as noted above, the instructions given in the 

instant case already provided this relational element as to 

"carry" in line with Bullock, by stating: 

[T]he Government must prove each of the 

elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) 

defendant committed a drug trafficking crime; 

during the commission of the drug trafficking 

defendant used or carried~ firearm. 

IR., Item 28, at 83 (emphasis added). 

We AFFIRM. 

following 

that the 

(2) that 

crime, the 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6352 Document: 010110031230 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 5