Source: http://openjurist.org/990/f2d/360
Timestamp: 2014-09-01 08:03:23
Document Index: 15081112

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', 'art, 21', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

990 F2d 360 United States v. Wesley | OpenJurist
990 F. 2d 360 - United States v. Wesley	Home990 f2d 360 united states v. wesley
990 F2d 360 United States v. Wesley 990 F.2d 360
38 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 569
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Demetress WESLEY, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Damon JOURNEY, Appellant.
Nos. 92-2751, 92-2799.
Submitted Jan. 15, 1993.Decided March 30, 1993.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 19, 1993.
James Knappenberger, Clayton, MO, argued, for Demetress Wesley.
John F. Garvey, Jr., St. Louis, MO, argued, for Damon Journey.
John Ware, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE*, Senior District Judge.
A two-count indictment charged both Appellant Wesley and Appellant Journey with (I) possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, section 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) and (II) using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, sections 2 and 924(c)(1). Appellant Wesley moved to suppress evidence and statements and a hearing was held before Magistrate Noce. Magistrate Noce recommended that Appellant Wesley's motions be denied; and the district court1 adopted Magistrate Noce's findings and recommendations.
After a week-long surveillance, which was prompted by a confidential informant's tip, Detective Reed obtained a state search warrant for 1337 Clara in St. Louis, Missouri. When the officers arrived, they found Appellant Wesley and Appellant Journey asleep. Wesley was on the floor in street clothes, and Journey was on a cot in pajamas. The officers found a fully loaded .38 caliber blue steel revolver on the floor between both appellants and within the reach of both appellants. Pagers were found for each appellant, and there was a cellular telephone on the bedstand.
The police found a shoebox full of money with bills of various denominations totaling one thousand dollars. In the closet of the bedroom the police found 128.72 grams of crack cocaine hidden in a purple "Crown Royal" bag. The purity of the cocaine varied from 84 to 99 percent.
Both appellants were arrested and advised of their rights. Appellant Wesley denied knowledge of the drugs at first but then stated that he was holding them for another individual.
Appellant Wesley claimed that the two pagers and portable telephone were his property. The records of the portable telephone company and the records of the pager store indicated that Appellant Journey was the purchaser of these items. Appellant Journey stated that 1337 Clara was his home address.
Appellant Wesley testified on his own behalf and denied possessing the gun or the cocaine base, denied living at 1337 Clara, and denied making any statements to the police at the time of his arrest. He admitted to having a prior conviction for possession of cocaine base and a weapons charge only after having his memory refreshed.
Appellants raise numerous issues on appeal. The court will examine each issue separately with a reference to the proper standard of review.
1. Constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Appellant Journey alleges that 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) when read with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) is unconstitutional because it violates the due process rights of the party charged. The question of whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law and must be reviewed de novo. United States v. Jacobs, 855 F.2d 652, 655 (9th Cir.1988). See also, United States v. Manthei, 979 F.2d 124, 128 (8th Cir.1992) (McMillian, dissenting).
In relevant part, 21 U.S.C. § 841 states:
(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally--(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance;
Except as otherwise provided in section 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: (1)(A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving--
21 U.S.C. § 841 (1992) (in part).
The Appellant contends from reading the applicable portions of section 841(a) and 841(b), that the jury is required to presume that if the party possessed 50 grams or more of cocaine base, that party was selling the drugs. The statute, however, does not create that presumption.2 The statute sets forth guidelines for punishment; it does not make any presumptions which may or may not be rebutted.
Therefore, once again this court will declare 21 U.S.C. § 841 constitutional. See United States v. Richardson, 477 F.2d 1280, 1281 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 843, 94 S.Ct. 104, 38 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973).
2. Admissibility of the Warrant Affidavit.
Appellant Wesley contends that the court should not have allowed Detective Reed to read a portion of his affidavit3 at the trial because it is hearsay. The Appellee states that the reason for reading the portion of the affidavit into the record was not for the proof of the matter asserted but instead was to uphold the credibility of Detective Reed.
At trial Detective Reed was asked by Appellant Journey to refer to his affidavit supporting the search warrant which was marked by the appellants for identification purposes as Exhibit C. Detective Reed was requested to read the statements of the search warrant to himself but to state which names were referenced in the warrant. Neither the government nor Appellant Wesley objected to the use of the affidavit. Exhibit C was not offered or received into evidence by the court.
Appellant Wesley alleged during the trial that the activities supporting the warrant were based on his activity at 5424 Bartmer not at 1337 Clara. The trial court allowed the prosecution to read into the record the portion of the affid