Opinion ID: 4537094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Evidence was Sufficient on Count Three

Text: To convict a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1) “use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm,” and (2) “that the use or carrying was ‘during and in relation to’ a ‘crime of 11 Case: 19-10340 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 12 of 15 violence or drug trafficking crime.’” Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228 (1993) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)). A defendant is liable for carrying a firearm if he had it on his person or in his car during and in relation to a drug sale. See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 131–32 (1998). Here, the government provided direct evidence of Johnson’s guilt in the form of a confession. 8 A confession requires corroboration if it is to be used to support a conviction against the accused. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 92– 93 (1954). As Johnson points out, the corroboration must consist of “substantial evidence” which supports the truthfulness of the admission. Id. But the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the admission, to establish that Johnson committed the crime. See id. at 93. Here, we find there was sufficient corroborating evidence to bolster Johnson’s confession. The government 8 Johnson claims that he “never admitted” to carrying a gun during the undercover transaction. A review of the transcript disproves this contention. Johnson admitted he had owned the pistol for “about a month.” When asked who Johnson was supposed to deal drugs to on the day of his arrest, October 2, Johnson said “I don’t even know the dude name” [sic], but that he called for heroin, and he had served him once before. When asked about the “last time” he dealt drugs to that same person, who was Detective Boree, Johnson said “Ah… last week.” Johnson was asked “when you served him last week… was you worried about him robbing you?” Johnson replied, “Hell yeah” and added that Boree was “[a] white boy.” The detective then asked, “did you have your shit on you then?” to which Johnson replied “Ah, yeah I had.” The detectives praised him for his honesty and said, “it’s rough on the street.” In the context of the conversation, Johnson’s admission meant that he had a gun on the day he first served Detective Boree, September 29. But if that were not clear enough, he repeats the confession later in the interview. One of the detectives asked later “so… you’ve had that, ah, pistol just for a little while, about a month.” Johnson replied, “Yes sir.” Then the detective asked, “You had it last time you served the white boy worried about… white boy might rob you.” Again, given the history of the conversation, “last time” Johnson served the “white boy” was the September 29 transaction. Johnson replied, “Yes sir.” 12 Case: 19-10340 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 13 of 15 presented photographic and video evidence that Johnson owned a gun before the September 29 drug deal. Detective Boree had heard reports that Johnson carried a gun. When Boree entered Johnson’s car on September 29, he was concerned for his safety because Johnson was postured in a way that made Boree think he might have a gun nearby. Finally, Johnson was found in possession of his gun when he was arrested in the same car on October 2. Regardless of whether this evidence would be independently sufficient for a conviction, it is sufficient to corroborate Johnson’s confession. 9 C. Admission of the Photograph in Exhibit 14-1 Was Not Error Generally, relevant evidence is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401. However, the district court may “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. In reviewing evidence under 9 Johnson relies on a case where we held as “plainly insufficient” the government’s evidence that the defendant possessed a firearm during a robbery. See United States v. Feliciano, 761 F.3d 1202, 1212 (11th Cir. 2014). However, the facts of that case are entirely distinguishable. There, not only did no one see the defendant with a gun, the video surveillance of the robbery did not capture a gun and his two co-defendants testified positively that he did not carry a gun during the robbery. See id. The government’s only evidence was that the defendant had used a gun in a prior bank robbery, a gun which was then pawned—the defendant had not confessed. See id. at 1206. But in our present case, the government presented evidence that Johnson used a gun on September 29 and introduced Johnson’s confession that he did. See, e.g., United States v. Billue, 994 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir. 1993) (sustaining conviction for possession of a firearm even in the absence of confession where pawn shop owner could not remember if convicted felon brought in the firearm in question, nor did he see him hold or touch it, but the felon signed the sale form to the pawn shop). 13 Case: 19-10340 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 14 of 15 Rule 403, we “look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 n.8 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1362 (11th Cir. 2006)). Rule 403 is “an extraordinary remedy” and “should be used only sparingly.” Id. (quoting United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir.2006)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photo. The photo was relevant to show the victim’s cause of death was solely on account of the drug overdose and not alcohol, which Johnson disputed at the time, by highlighting the speed at which the drugs took effect—i.e., before the victim was done using the toilet. It also showed the position that the investigators found the body and showed that the victim was still dressed in her work clothes from the nightclub—a detail that made it more likely she came straight home without having time to change and less likely she went to another location after work to purchase drugs, as Johnson tried to insinuate at trial. Finally, although any picture of a dead body is hard to see, we agree with the district court that this photograph was not unduly offensive. Any prejudicial value does not “substantially outweigh” the photo’s highly probative value. 10 F.R.E. 403. 10 We also note that the much more graphic photographs, those in Exhibit 15, were not contested on appeal. 14 Case: 19-10340 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 15 of 15