Opinion ID: 346995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hicks' Appeal

Text: 5 The first issue raised by Hicks involves the seizure of his passport, which was admitted into evidence at trial, over Hicks' motion to suppress. Hicks maintains that the seizure violated the requirement of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), that a plain view discovery be inadvertent. His argument is that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents who arrested him had been aware for several months that Hicks had a passport and that it would constitute evidence of a conspiracy. Hicks contends that the agents anticipate(d) the discovery of the passport and intend(ed) to seize it. Brief for Appellant Hicks at 10. 6 Hicks was arrested along with his wife in the bedroom of their home, pursuant to a warrant. At the time, Janet Hicks was permitted to call her parents to have them pick up her daughter. After the Hickses had dressed, they were taken into the den to await the arrival of Janet Hicks' parents. While one of the agents was leaning against a bookcase, he saw the passport close by in plain view on an open shelf at approximately his shoulder height. No search was made of the room in order to observe the passport. Immediately grasping the passport's significance, the agent seized it without a warrant for the seizure. 7 This case does not present a situation where an agent maneuvered himself into a position in order to discover evidence he was seeking. The discovery of the passport, although a foreseeable possibility, was unplanned and inadvertent. What Coolidge proscribes is an anticipated discovery, where the police know in advance the location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Id., 403 U.S. at 470, 91 S.Ct. at 2040. Here the agent had a legitimate reason for being in the room, he came upon the passport inadvertently and it was immediately apparent to him that the passport constituted evidence of the conspiracy. Even if the DEA agents had expected to find the passport and the evidence does not suggest they did that would not have destroyed the necessary inadvertence to satisfy Coolidge. United States v. Worthington, 5 Cir., 1977,544 F.2d 1275, 1280 n.4, [cert. Denied --U.S., 98 S.Ct. 55, --L.Ed.3d --]; see United States v. Cushnie, 5 Cir., 1973, 488 F.2d 81, cert. denied,419 U.S. 968, 95 S.Ct. 233, 42 L.Ed.2d 184 (1974). 8 Hicks' second argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. A person engages in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848(b)(2), if he violates the Drug Act in a continuing series of such violations 9 (A) which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and 10 (B) from which such person obtains substantial income or resources. 11 Hicks maintains that the requisite elements of the crime were not present. He asserts that there were not five persons in positions under his supervision, and that he did not obtain substantial income from the narcotics transactions. 12 We consider first the issue of the number of persons in the enterprise. There was evidence indicating that there were six couriers: Coleman Ray Bandy, Dale Norris, Jerry Lynn Coffman, Mary Norris, Lloyd Pitchford and Jackie Kennedy. Hicks maintains, however that Pitchford and Kennedy worked for Bandy, and that Bandy was not a subordinate of Hicks but was perhaps some sort of business equal. Hicks asserts that there were inconsistencies in the testimony as to whether Bandy was working under him. Our examination of the record leads us to reject appellant's argument. The testimony clearly shows that Hicks was calling the shots with respect to the narcotics smuggling of the couriers. Whether he had personal contact with two of them is immaterial; he was the kingpin of the trafficking activities, and thus occupied an organizational, supervisory or management status with respect to the other persons involved therein. We note, too, although it is unnecessary to our decision, that Janet Hicks also played a role in the courier system, thus bringing the number of persons subordinate to Hicks in the continuing criminal enterprise to at least seven. 13 Appellant Hicks contends in addition that, for a section 848 violation, the requisite five subordinates must act in concert at the same time. However, the statute contains no such requirement, and we decline to impose it here. United States v. Sperling, 2 Cir., 1974, 506 F.2d 1323, cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975), 421 U.S. 949, 95 S.Ct. 1682, 44 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). 14 We now consider the other element disputed herein of a section 848 violation: obtain(ing) substantial income or resources. Hicks asserts that the statute requires the accused to obtain substantial income from the violations. He concedes, however, that the testimony showed substantial amounts of money passing through the hands of the parties to the transactions. Indeed, there was ample evidence that large quantities of heroin and cocaine passed through the trafficking operations and that many thousands of dollars changed hands, some of which was received directly by Hicks. This satisfied the statutory requirement. See United States v. Jeffers, 7 Cir., 1976, 532 F.2d 1101; United States v. Sisca, 2 Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 1337, cert. denied,419 U.S. 1008, 95 S.Ct. 328, 42 L.Ed.2d 283. 15 In a related argument, Hicks asserts that there were a prejudicial remark by the trial court, an improper suggestion by the prosecutor, and the improper admission of opinion evidence which, individually or cumulatively, prejudiced appellant's cause on the issue whether he obtained substantial income from the narcotics offenses. Since we have already held in essence that it was unnecessary for the Government to show proof of net income, appellant's contention loses much of its significance. Furthermore, consideration of each alleged impropriety reveals no prejudice to Hicks. 16 Hicks complains of a comment by the court which questioned the relevancy of certain testimony as to his personal financial condition. Specifically, the testimony was designed to show that Mrs. Hicks had financed the purchase of a vacuum cleaner, rather than paying cash for it. We entertain strong doubts ourselves as to the relevancy of the testimony, which was accompanied by a great number of other exhibits admitted into evidence showing, for example, that Hicks was unable to meet his personal financial obligations. That he could not pay his bills and was unable to manage properly his finances is not necessarily relevant to the question whether he obtained substantial income or resources from the criminal enterprise. Furthermore, even assuming that the evidence was relevant, the judge admitted it, and gave the jury an adequate cautionary instruction, explaining that all evidence which was admitted was relevant in the court's view and should be given such consideration as the members of the jury felt it deserved, and that the jury should disregard the judge's remarks on any jury question. The challenged comment did not amount to reversible error. United States v. Onori, 5 Cir., 1976, 535 F.2d 938, 943-44. 17 Appellant Hicks also complains of the following question asked him during cross-examination by the prosecutor: Do you want to tell the jury what the number is of your Swiss bank account? Hicks' response was, I wish I had a Swiss bank account. Hicks contends that the question was prejudicial and was based upon a fact which was not in the record and which the prosecutor was not prepared to prove. In denying a motion for a mistrial, the court instructed the attorneys in the presence of the jury that no questions should be asked without good faith and a basis of belief. Later, the court held an in camera hearing into the Government's good faith in asking the question. The court determined that there was no tangible evidence of a Swiss bank account, but that, based upon the in camera hearing and the evidence in the record, there was a basis for the question and it had thus been asked in good faith. We accept this finding. In light of the other evidence on the amount of money which changed hands, the question was not highly prejudicial anyway. Furthermore, the court instructed the jury to disregard the question and the answer. Even assuming that the question was improper, the error was cured by the court's instruction to disregard. United States v. Harrington, 5 Cir., 1976, 543 F.2d 1151; cf. United States v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1975, 517 F.2d 710; United States v. Pritchard, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 327. 18 Hicks' last contention on the issue of prejudice at trial involves the admission of testimony of a DEA agent on the value of the narcotics. Appellant mounts several attacks on the admission of the evidence, his primary complaint apparently being that the testimony included evidence on street value which was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, insofar as the large amounts of money discussed in such testimony went to a closely contested issue in the case. It is well settled that the admissibility of expert testimony is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial judge and his decision is not to be disturbed unless it is manifestly erroneous. United States v. Lopez, 5 Cir., 1976, 543 F.2d 1156. Having examined the challenged testimony and considered the assertions of appellant on this point, we find nothing manifestly erroneous about the reception into evidence of the agent's opinion testimony. Even assuming a question of relevancy existed with regard to the evidence of street value, in particular, we disagree that that evidence went to a closely contested issue. The evidence that Hicks obtained substantial income or resources was overwhelming. Therefore, there was no prejudice in the admission of this testimony. 19 Hicks' final contention is that the consecutive sentences under Counts I, III and IV were imposed improperly because the conspiracy count charged the same acts for which he was charged with being an accessory in the substantive counts. This argument is without merit. Curtis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1977, 546 F.2d 1188; see United States v. Peterson, 4 Cir., 1975, 524 F.2d 167, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 925, 96 S.Ct. 1136, 47 L.Ed.2d 334 (1976), 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); United States v. Towns, 6 Cir., 1975, 512 F.2d 1057, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846, 96 S.Ct. 84, 46 L.Ed.2d 67 (1976); United States v. Tierney, 9 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 643, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 850, 91 S.Ct. 53, 27 L.Ed.2d 87.