Court Opinion

ID: 9944026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:01:54.472999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:07.672143
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1112
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 Prince L. Spellman

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 16, 2024
                             Filed: February 26, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Prince Spellman, who is proceeding pro se, appeals after a jury convicted him
of drug and firearm offenses and the district court1 sentenced him to 450 months in

      1
      The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
prison. On appeal, Spellman challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, and
argues that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

        Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Spellman’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th
Cir. 2020) (in reviewing denial of a motion to suppress, district court’s findings of
fact are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo). The
officers had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle, as it met the description of a
vehicle involved in a shots-fired incident, see United States v. Bell, 480 F.3d 860, 863
(8th Cir. 2007) (officers may conduct an investigatory stop of a vehicle if they have
a reasonable suspicion, with an objective and particularized basis, that the vehicle or
its occupants are involved in criminal activity), and there was probable cause to
search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle and the
firearm observed in plain view on the floorboard, see United States v. Beard, 708
F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2013) (probable cause to search a vehicle exists when a
reasonable person could believe there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence
of a crime will be found inside; smell of marijuana in a vehicle can establish probable
cause to search the vehicle for drugs).

       We also conclude that Spellman failed to show the government engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct, as he failed to show that the government knowingly elicited
false testimony, or that such testimony likely affected the jury’s verdict. See United
States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 2014) (to obtain relief based on claim
of prosecutorial misconduct, defendant must show prosecutor’s conduct was improper
and affected his substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial); United States
v. Flores-Lagonas, 993 F.3d 550, 562 (8th Cir. 2021) (to establish due process
violation based on prosecutorial use of false testimony, defendant must show that the
prosecution used perjured testimony, the prosecution knew or should have known of
the perjury, and there was a reasonable likelihood that the perjured testimony could
have affected the jury’s verdict).

                                          -2-
Accordingly, we affirm.
               ______________________________

                            -3-