Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/889/281/354256/
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 02:56:52
Document Index: 7663812

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 856', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 924']

United States of America v. Kenroy Laing, A/k/a Junior Roy Laing, Appellant.united States of America v. Garfield Dean Martin, Appellant, 889 F.2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › D.C. Circuit › 1989 › United States of America v. Kenroy Laing, A/k/a Junior Roy Laing, Appellant.united States of America...
United States of America v. Kenroy Laing, A/k/a Junior Roy Laing, Appellant.united States of America v. Garfield Dean Martin, Appellant, 889 F.2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 889 F.2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 1989) Argued Sept. 22, 1989. Decided Nov. 14, 1989
Laing and Martin were both charged with the possession of fifty or more grams of cocaine (the forty-five grams found on Laing's person plus the nine found in the apartment) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1982); with using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) (Supp. V 1987); and with possession of an unregistered firearm and ammunition, in violation of 6 D.C.Code Secs. 2311 and 2361. In addition, Laing was charged with possessing a machine gun, in violation of 22 D.C.Code Sec. 3214(a). Foreman pled guilty to a charge of making her apartment available to store and distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (Supp. V 1987). Although Brown occasionally received money in exchange for serving as a lookout in front of the apartment, no charge was brought against him.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees " [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Law officers may arrest a person without a warrant only if they have probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225-26, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1964). Law officers may also temporarily detain a person for questioning or investigation if they have a reasonable suspicion, supported by "specific and articulable facts" and "rational inferences from those facts," that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Although an investigative stop is not an arrest, it may become one if the duration of the stop or the amount of force used is "unreasonable" under the circumstances. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682-88, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1573-77, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985); United States v. White, 648 F.2d 29, 34-35 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 924, 102 S. Ct. 424, 70 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1981); see also United States v. Oshinuga, 647 F. Supp. 105, 108-09 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (eighteen-hour detention reasonable given suspicion that detainee was transporting narcotics internally).
During an investigative stop law officers may, under appropriate circumstances, search the detainee to determine whether he is armed. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at 1883. In Terry, the Court provided the following rationale for this rule:
Id. at 24, 88 S. Ct. at 1881. Such a search must be for weapons only and must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Id. at 25-26, 88 S. Ct. at 1882; see also Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62-66, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 1902-04, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968) (Fourth Amendment does not permit search for drugs on the person of suspect detained in investigative stop).
Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at 1883 (citations omitted); see also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972) ("So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose.") (footnote omitted). The amount of force used to carry out the stop and search must be reasonable, but may include using handcuffs or forcing the detainee to lie down to prevent flight, United States v. Taylor, 716 F.2d 701, 708-09 (9th Cir. 1983), or drawing guns where law officers reasonably believe they are necessary for their protection. E.g., United States v. Merritt, 695 F.2d 1263, 1272-74 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 916, 103 S. Ct. 1898, 77 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1983). Factors that may justify an investigative stop, a search for weapons, or the escalated use of force include the time of day, the "high-crime" nature of the area, an informant's tips that persons might be armed, furtive hand movements, flight or attempted flight by the person sought to be detained, and a pressing need for immediate action. Adams, 407 U.S. at 147-48, 92 S. Ct. at 1924; White, 648 F.2d at 39-40, 43.
The officers' treatment of Laing clearly falls within the Terry doctrine. Laing's hand movements and flight toward apartment 202, coupled with the time of day and the officers' knowledge of the area and their belief that those in the apartment were heavily armed, make it clear that the officers' actions were motivated by a genuine and well-founded fear that Laing was armed and were reasonable under the circumstances. See White, 648 F.2d at 40 ("A 'reasonable reaction' in this context ... turns on 'the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' ") (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949)). We therefore hold that the district court properly denied Laing's motion to suppress the cocaine found on his person.
Laing also argues that his convictions should be vacated because there was insufficient evidence to link him to either the cocaine or the machine gun found inside the apartment. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the court must "view [ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government" and accord it "the benefit of all legitimate inferences ... recognizing that it is the jury's province to determine credibility and to weigh the evidence." United States v. Singleton, 702 F.2d 1159, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The court must then determine whether each element of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted is sufficiently supported by the evidence. See United States v. Carter, 522 F.2d 666, 683 n. 60 (D.C. Cir. 1975). We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support Laing's convictions for possessing fifty grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute and carrying the machine gun in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
The district court enjoys a large measure of discretion with respect to instructing the jury concerning the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Lee, 506 F.2d 111, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1002, 95 S. Ct. 2403, 44 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1975). Where the prosecution relies on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, however, "if important elements of the accomplice's testimony are uncorroborated by other direct evidence and if circumstantial evidence tending to corroborate the accomplice's testimony is not compelling or supports that testimony only through a chain of inferences that is less than immediate and not altogether clear," it may be reversible error for the court to refuse to give an accomplice instruction when requested by a defendant. United States v. Bernal, 814 F.2d 175, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1987) (footnote omitted); accord Lee, 506 F.2d at 118-19. In such a case, the defendant is entitled to a new trial if the failure to give the accomplice instruction substantially affected the outcome of the trial. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S. Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946); Bernal, 814 F.2d at 184-85. Where accomplice testimony is materially corroborated, however, "the failure to give a cautionary accomplice instruction is not error--whether requested or not." Lee, 506 F.2d at 120.
To prevail on this claim, Laing and Martin must show that Brown was an accomplice and that his testimony was not materially corroborated, and that the failure to give an accomplice instruction substantially affected the outcome of the trial. The government's theory of the case was that Brown was more a victim of the cocaine-selling operation than a co-venturer. Although Brown was only fourteen years old at the time of the search and testified at trial that he had wanted the drug dealers to leave the apartment, he was paid on occasion by the drug dealers to stand watch outside the apartment. Regardless of the government's theory of the case, Brown could have been indicted for his participation and therefore could have been considered an accomplice. See United States v. Nolte, 440 F.2d 1124, 1126 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 862, 92 S. Ct. 49, 30 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1971).
In Count One of its indictment, the grand jury charged that Martin and Laing had "unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally possess [ed] with intention to distribute ... 50 grams and more" of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and other sections of the Code. In Count Three, it charged that Martin,
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime for which he may be prosecuted in a court of law, that is, Count One of this Indictment, knowingly used and carried a firearm [in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) ].
Martin contends that all of the elements of the offense of carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense (Count Three) of which he was convicted could not, as a matter of law, have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt because he was acquitted of the underlying drug trafficking offense (Count One). A criminal defendant, however, may not attack his conviction on one count solely because it is inconsistent with the jury's acquittal on another. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S. Ct. 471, 83 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1984); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S. Ct. 189, 76 L. Ed. 356 (1932). This is the rule even where the defendant has been convicted of a compound offense but acquitted of a predicate offense that is an element of the compound offense. Powell, 469 U.S. at 67-68, 105 S. Ct. at 478 (defendant convicted of using telephone in facilitation of conspiracy to sell drugs and possession of drugs, but acquitted of the conspiracy and possession charges). Although inconsistent verdicts indicate that the jury did not speak its real conclusions, they do not necessarily indicate that the jury was not convinced of the defendant's guilt. Id. at 64-65, 105 S. Ct. at 476-477. It cannot be determined from such inconsistency whether the government or the defendant has reaped a windfall: the jury may have acquitted on the predicate offense as a result of lenity even though it was convinced of the defendant's guilt. Id. at 65, 105 S. Ct. at 476-77. Jury verdicts are therefore insulated from review on the grounds of inconsistency, and review is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Id. at 67, 69, 105 S. Ct. at 478, 479.
The Supreme Court's decision in Powell forecloses Martin's argument. Martin's contention that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) requires proof of all of the elements of a drug trafficking crime beyond a reasonable doubt is therefore beside the point. Moreover, Martin acknowledges that section 924(c) (1) would support a conviction in the absence of a separately charged drug trafficking offense.
Martin claims, however, that the reference in Count Three to the violation charged in Count One as the predicate drug trafficking offense takes this case outside the reach of Powell. Martin argues that Count One was therefore made an element of Count Three. Like the exception put forth by the defendant in Powell, however, this argument "falls almost of its own weight." 469 U.S. at 67, 105 S. Ct. at 478. Martin contends that not all of the elements of Count Three were proven beyond a reasonable doubt because of the acquittal on Count One. Powell clearly teaches, however, that we may not infer that the government failed to prove all of the elements of Count Three from the acquittal on Count One.
The only relevant question, therefore, is whether Martin's conviction on the section 924(c) (1) offense is supported by sufficient evidence. The handgun was found hidden under dirty laundry near the locked bathroom from which Martin emerged during the search. Testimony by Foreman and Brown indicated that Martin took part in the drug-selling operation and regularly carried the handgun while doing so. Even though no drugs or weapons were actually found on Martin's person after he emerged from the bathroom in the apartment, the evidence, if believed, establishes a sufficient link between Martin, the handgun, and the drugs to support his conviction on Count Three.
Record Item 36 at 2. Counsel for Martin asked the district court to reinstruct the jury that it had to find every element of the section 841(a) offense to convict on the section 924(c) (1) offense. The government, however, argued that the district court should limit its reply to the specific question asked by the jury. The court gave the following answer to the jury's question:
A trial court has considerable discretion in determining how to respond, if at all, to a jury's request for clarification of a jury instruction. United States v. Wharton, 433 F.2d 451, 454 n. 9 (D.C. Cir. 1970); 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 502, at 827 (1982). Where the jury explicitly reveals its confusion on an issue, however, the court should reinstruct the jury to clear away the confusion. Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13, 66 S. Ct. 402, 405, 90 L. Ed. 350 (1946); United States v. Bolden, 514 F.2d 1301, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1975). A court may go beyond the limits of the jury's request for clarification to avoid giving a misleading or one-sided answer. 2 C. Wright, supra Sec. 502, at 829-30. A court's determination to limit its response to answering the jury's question, however, should be reversed only if it is an abuse of discretion. See Wharton, 433 F.2d at 454 n. 9. Moreover, the court must consider the propriety of the supplemental instruction in light of the other instructions previously given. Vauss v. United States, 370 F.2d 250, 252 (D.C. Cir. 1966). Unlike the cases relied on by Martin, which involved incorrect initial or supplemental instructions, see, e.g., United States v. Rhone, 864 F.2d 832, 834-35 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (error in original charge); United States v. Lasuita, 752 F.2d 249, 251-54 (6th Cir. 1985) (incorrect supplemental instruction), the initial and supplemental instructions in this case were clearly correct. We therefore hold that the district court's failure to repeat its earlier instructions was not an abuse of discretion.