Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03484/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Barfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitano, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3484

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Curtis Barfield, * District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2005

Filed: February 8, 2006 

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Barfield appeals his conviction for conspiracy to murder a federal

witness, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 371, contending that the evidence was insufficient.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.1

Mr. Barfield was convicted of conspiracy to murder a federal witness based on

his involvement in the death of Jovan Ross. Ms. Ross told police that her boyfriend,

Xavier Lightfoot, had participated in several robberies and that the residence where

Appellate Case: 02-3484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007392
-2-

they lived contained proceeds of those robberies. After investigating, police and FBI

agents executed a search warrant on the residence and seized cash boxes, travelers'

checks, money wrappers, cash bags, dark clothing, and weapons. Mr. Lightfoot was

charged with robbery, and during discovery in his case the government produced

documents indicating that Ms. Ross was going to be the primary prosecution witness

at Mr. Lightfoot's trial. She was murdered just before that trial was to have begun.

According to testimony at Mr. Barfield's trial, while Mr. Lightfoot was

incarcerated he talked with Cornelius Peoples, who had also participated in the

robberies. They discussed finding someone to kill Ms. Ross before she could testify

at Mr. Lightfoot's trial or incriminate anyone else involved in the robberies.

According to Anthony Hunter's testimony, when Mr. Peoples contacted him for this

purpose Mr. Hunter said that he was not interested in killing Ms. Ross himself, but he

called Mr. Barfield to ask for assistance in finding a killer. Mr. Hunter testified that

Mr. Barfield agreed to help in exchange for part of the money that Mr. Peoples had

promised to pay Mr. Hunter and that Mr. Barfield then recruited Carl Haskell to shoot

Ms. Ross. According to Mr. Hunter, Mr. Peoples and Larry Platt drove Mr. Barfield

and him to Ms. Ross's home and work locations, with the understanding that

Mr. Barfield was to pass on the information to Mr. Haskell. (Although Mr. Platt

testified, he did not mention accompanying Mr. Hunter on this trip.) Mr. Hunter also

testified that he and Mr. Barfield provided the car that the killer used and that after the

shooting he brought Mr. Haskell and Mr. Barfield to meet with Mr. Peoples to confirm

that the deed had been done. 

According to the testimony of Quinton Jones, an intimate of Mr. Haskell's,

Mr. Barfield met Mr. Haskell at a house in Kansas City, Kansas, where Mr. Haskell

and Mr. Jones were staying. Mr. Jones testified that after a brief discussion with

Mr. Haskell, Mr. Barfield left, and Mr. Haskell asked Mr. Jones to drive him to

Missouri. Mr. Jones further testified that they departed in a car that Mr. Jones later

discovered had been procured from Mr. Barfield. Upon arriving at Ms. Ross's

Appellate Case: 02-3484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007392
-3-

residence, according to Mr. Jones, Mr. Haskell kicked in the door and shot the

occupant while Mr. Jones stood by. Mr. Jones stated that he understood that the gun

used on Ms. Ross had come from Mr. Barfield.

Clarence Burnett also testified against Mr. Barfield at his trial. Mr. Burnett said

that he met Mr. Barfield in a federal detention facility before Mr. Barfield's trial for

the murder of Ms. Ross, and that Mr. Barfield had said that he and Mr. Hunter had

organized a hit on a witness against Mr. Lightfoot. Mr. Burnett also testified that

Mr. Barfield described casing the witness's home and job site, complained to

Mr. Burnett that he had not been paid for his role in the killing, and asked Mr. Burnett

for his opinion on the evidence against him. Mr. Burnett further stated that he did not

talk with Mr. Hunter, although Mr. Hunter testified to the contrary.

Mr. Barfield argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for

judgment of acquittal. He contends that conflicts in the testimony of the three

principal witnesses for the prosecution made the government's evidence insufficient

to support the determination that Mr. Barfield knowingly contributed his efforts to

further a conspiracy to murder Ms. Ross. The defendant argues that Mr. Platt's failure

in his testimony to corroborate Mr. Hunter's testimony regarding the trip with

Mr. Peoples and Mr. Barfield to scout out Ms. Ross's addresses undercuts the evidence

that Mr. Barfield participated in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Mr. Barfield also points out that Mr. Hunter's testimony that he met Mr. Burnett in

prison was arguably undermined by Mr. Burnett's testimony that he had not talked to

Mr. Hunter. In addition, witnesses gave different theories on the fate of a pink box

taken from Ms. Ross's residence: Mr. Jones testified that it had been thrown away en

route from Ms. Ross's home; another witness, who met with Mr. Haskell and

Mr. Jones after the shooting, testified that he had seen the box in their possession after

they returned to Kansas.

Appellate Case: 02-3484 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007392
-4-

We review the district court's denial of Mr. Barfield's motion for judgment of

acquittal by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and

will reverse only if no reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707, 721 (8th Cir. 2005), petition

for cert. filed, No. 05-8684 (Jan. 11, 2006). To convict Mr. Barfield, the government

needed to establish that a conspiracy existed, that Mr. Barfield knew of the

conspiracy, and that he knowingly joined it. See id. at 719. An express agreement is

not required for conviction; if the defendant has a tacit understanding with the other

participants, that will suffice. The defendant, however, must cooperate in some way;

mere knowledge of the conspiracy is not sufficient. United States v. Crossland,

301 F.3d 907, 913 (8th Cir. 2002).

Here, the conspiracy laid was an agreement to achieve the illegal purpose of

murdering a federal witness. Mr. Hunter testified that he had worked jointly with

Mr. Barfield to procure a killer for Mr. Peoples and that Mr. Barfield was to provide

information on Ms. Ross's location to Mr. Haskell. Mr. Jones testified that

Mr. Barfield had a private discussion with Mr. Haskell that immediately preceded

Mr. Haskell's asking Mr. Jones for transportation to an address later revealed to be the

home of Ms. Ross. The jury had the opportunity to assess the credibility of all this

testimony and to determine whether the inconsistencies in the testimony were

inconsequential or gave rise to reasonable doubts about Mr. Barfield's guilt. There

was, moreover, considerable circumstantial evidence pointing to Mr. Barfield's

involvement and participation in the conspiracy to murder Ms. Ross. The evidence

in the record was more than sufficient to convict Mr. Barfield.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-3484 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007392