Court Opinion

ID: 9899158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:36.861898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.523288
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11011         Document: 00516968852             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11011
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              November 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Eric Prescott Kay,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-269-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Eric Prescott Kay of (1)
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone and fentanyl, and
   (2) distribution of fentanyl, resulting in death and serious bodily injury. Kay,
   who worked as Director of Communications for the Los Angeles Angels
   baseball organization, routinely supplied Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11011      Document: 00516968852            Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                      No. 22-11011

   numerous other professional baseball players with oxycodone. Skaggs died in
   a Texas hotel room after ingesting oxycodone that was laced with fentanyl.
   In finding Kay guilty, the jury concluded, inter alia, that Kay supplied Skaggs
   with the deadly fentanyl-laced pill and that the fentanyl was the but-for cause
   of his death. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). On appeal, Kay contends that the
   evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain either of his convictions or to show
   that venue was proper in Texas. Kay also challenges the propriety of several
   statements that the prosecutor made during her closing arguments.
          We begin with Kay’s sufficiency claims, which he only partially
   preserved in the district court. In his motion for judgment of acquittal under
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, Kay contended that (1) the
   government failed to prove that the fentanyl he distributed to Skaggs was the
   but-for cause of death, or (2) venue was proper in Texas on both counts. We
   review a preserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, but
   we review an unpreserved claim for a manifest miscarriage of justice only.
   United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2007).
          The evidence and all reasonable inferences, when viewed in the light
   most favorable to the verdict, would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that
   (1) after Skaggs asked Kay for oxycodone, Kay met with his supplier in
   California and obtained the pills; (2) Kay later gave the pills to Skaggs in his
   hotel room in Southlake, Texas, where he and the team were staying the night
   before a series against the Texas Rangers; and (3) Skaggs later died in his
   hotel room after ingesting one of the tainted pills. Additionally, at least two
   doctors testified that the fentanyl was the but-for cause of Skaggs’s death. See
   United States v. Burrage, 571 U.S. 204, 209-10 (2014); see also § 841(b)(1)(C).
   The evidence was sufficient to show that (1) Kay participated in a conspiracy

                                           2
Case: 22-11011         Document: 00516968852              Page: 3       Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                          No. 22-11011

   to possess with intent to deliver oxycodone and fentanyl, 1 see United States v.
   Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2006); (2) he distributed fentanyl
   resulting in death, see United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 446 (5th Cir.
   2002); and (3) venue was proper in Texas as to both counts, see 18 U.S.C.
   § 3237(a); United States v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358, 369 (5th Cir. 2012); Solis,
   299 F.3d at 445.
           Kay also asserts that the prosecutor made at least six improper
   remarks during closing arguments when she misstated evidence, vouched for
   the credibility of government witnesses, and personally attacked defense
   counsel. “A criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of
   a prosecutor’s comments standing alone.” United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d
   114, 117 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Our inquiry is limited to “whether
   the prosecutor’s remarks cast serious doubt on the correctness of the jury’s
   verdict.” Id. This is a “high bar” to overcome. United States v. Aguilar, 645
   F.3d 319, 325 (5th Cir. 2011). Kay objected to two of the allegedly improper
   statements during trial. We review the preserved issues for abuse of
   discretion, see United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330, 361 (5th Cir. 2003), and
   the unpreserved issues for plain error, United States v. Vargas, 580 F.3d 274,
   278 (5th Cir. 2009).
           Kay cannot show error, plain or otherwise, in the prosecutor’s
   remarks about the evidence or defense counsel. In context, the record reflects
   that the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence related to (1) deleted text
   messages between Skaggs and his friend, (2) Kay being Skaggs’s only source
   of oxycodone, (3) the doctors’ testimonies regarding the but-for cause of
   Skaggs’s death, or (4) Kay’s presence in Skaggs’s room when he died.
           _____________________
           1
             The evidence of Kay’s numerous drug sales to Skaggs and other players renders
   this court’s buyer-seller exception inapplicable. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d
   192, 198 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                                3
Case: 22-11011      Document: 00516968852          Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-11011

   Rather, the prosecutor was reviewing the evidence and reasonable inferences
   to be drawn therefrom, and was responding to theories offered by Kay, both
   of which she was entitled to do. See United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482,
   491 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lara, 23 F.4th 459, 481 (5th Cir. 2022)
   (explaining that a prosecutor may “directly respond to theories of evidence
   offered by defense counsel”). Further, the prosecutor did not personally
   attack defense counsel. The challenged remark instead focused the jury on
   the weaknesses in the defense’s case and emphasized Kay’s inability to refute
   or undermine the inculpatory evidence. See United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d
   467, 487-88 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The prosecutor’s arguments, properly
   understood, attacked the strength of the defense on the merits, not the
   integrity of defense counsel.”). Finally, even if a remark could be construed
   as the prosecutor’s vouching for the credibility of the baseball players who
   testified that Kay sold them oxycodone, Kay does not deny that he did in fact
   distribute drugs to those players. Without a significant dispute about this
   issue, Kay cannot show that the statement had a significant prejudicial effect.
   See United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding
   that a prosecutor’s potentially improper statements do not affect a
   defendant’s substantial rights in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt).
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         4