Court Opinion

ID: 9474934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:12:52.60236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:24.889480
License: Public Domain

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
No person may be convicted and imprisoned unless a sufficient amount of evidence is produced to prove that the accused is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of the offense charged. E.g., Jackson v. Virgin*585ia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). To convict a person without competent evidence to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is to deprive the person of liberty without due process of law. Id. at 315-16, 99 S.Ct. at 2786-87; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). I believe that in this case the defendant was convicted without sufficient evidence.
In our consideration of a petition for habeas relief, our purpose is not to review every potential error committed by a state court. We review only to determine whether a federal constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated: “[I]t is clear that a state prisoner who alleges that the evidence in support of his state conviction cannot be fairly characterized as sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has stated a federal constitutional claim.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 321, 99 S.Ct. at 2790. Accordingly, the task of this court is to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, id. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789, there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Algar Ferguson intended to sell the marijuana found in the automobile in which he was a passenger.
The government lists in its brief the following evidence against Ferguson to show possession of marijuana with the intent to sell: (1) his eyes were dilated at the time of his arrest; (2) he had been seated in a car behind the driver, and two “baggies” containing marijuana were found on the back seat near where he had been sitting; and (3) the total amount of marijuana was 56 grams, which was allegedly so large a quantity that one could infer that it was meant for sale rather than for personal use. See Appellee’s Brief at 1-7.
I first examine the evidence in regard to the condition of Ferguson’s eyes. The arresting officer testified that Ferguson’s eyes were dilated and that dilated eyes are a sign of marijuana use. On cross-examination, the officers conceded that numerous empty beer cans were found in the car, that Ferguson appeared to be intoxicated, that Ferguson smelled of alcohol, and that alcohol can also cause dilated eyes. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude from this evidence, at most, that Ferguson had smoked marijuana prior to his arrest. The fact that Ferguson had smoked marijuana would prove only that Ferguson has possessed and used the substance, not that he intended to sell it.
Next, one of the officers testified that Ferguson had been seated in the automobile near the place where the marijuana was found. There were four people in the car, which was not owned or driven by Ferguson. There were no fingerprints on the paper tube or on any of the baggies to show handling by Ferguson. Nevertheless, giving this evidence its strongest probative value and considering it together with the evidence of marijuana use, I conclude that the evidence could support an inference that Ferguson exercised dominion and control over the marijuana, that is, that he “possessed” it under the law. I believe that it is a close question, however, whether there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ferguson was the one of the four occupants who owned the marijuana. The two women in the automobile were allowed to leave the scene almost immediately after only minimal questioning. The officers were acquainted with Ferguson and appear to have assumed — just as immediately — that the marijuana was his.
Third, the amount of marijuana must be considered. When little or no evidence of any sales transaction is available, the courts have allowed the trier of fact to infer an intent to sell merely from the quantity possessed; this intent may be inferred when the quantity is so excessive that it could not reasonably have been possessed for private use. See, e.g., United States v. Grayson, 625 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that intent to sell may be inferred from possession of 304.77 grams of cocaine); United States v. Edwards, 602 *586F.2d 458, 470 (1st Cir.1979) (inferred from possession of two packages of cocaine containing 165.49 grams and 7.53 grams, with evidence that original package weighed 284 grams before repackaging); United States v. Brischetto, 538 F.2d 208, 209-10 (8th Cir.1976) (inferred from possession of 75 pounds of marijuana); cf. Smith v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.2d 606, 606 (Ky.1971) (inferred from possession of 60 to 70 cases of beer in dry county).
In this case the total amount of marijuana found was 56 grams, which is less than two ounces. This amount is not so unusually large that it could not reasonably have been intended for personal consumption and/or sharing with companions. The circumstances of this possession involve four persons in an automobile who appear to have been socializing. The group had just pulled into a dark, empty lot. It is as likely as not that the group intended to use the marijuana. I do not believe the quantity of marijuana was so clearly excessive that it demonstrates inferentially an intent to sell.
The empty baggies are an ambiguous piece of evidence. Viewed favorably, they could be considered probative of a plan to distribute the marijuana, but I find them to be minimally probative. The government presented no evidence as to whether the empty bags contained any residue of marijuana; the lack of any residue might have supported more firmly a conclusion that the empty bags were waiting to be filled for customers. In the absence of more evidence, however, a reasonable doubt arises as to the purpose of the bags and whether they were simply empty due to prior use.
The only evidence linking Ferguson to the sale of drugs was a recent conviction for selling marijuana. It is impermissible, however, to infer that, because a person had possessed marijuana in the past with the intent to sell it, he probably possessed this particular quantity of marijuana with the intent to sell it. Such an inference is forbidden under both Kentucky and federal law. See Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 486 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Ky.1972); Marshall v. Commonwealth, 482 S.W.2d 765, 766 (Ky. 1972); Fed.R.Evid. 404; see also R. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 2.20 (1984). In its brief to this court, the Commonwealth does not rely on the prior conviction as evidence of the crime charged. At trial, in its opening statement, the Commonwealth indicated that evidence of a prior conviction would be presented so that the jury would enhance the punishment under the Commonwealth’s persistent offender statute. There was no objection to the admission of the prior conviction because the evidence was admissible for a limited purpose. There clearly should have been a limiting instruction; this was surely a routine admission of a prior conviction for enhancement purposes, and it is undeniable that the evidence was extremely prejudicial.
We, as a court of law, are not bound to consider improperly admitted evidence when we are determining the sufficiency of the total evidence to convict. Cf, e.g., Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) (in considering whether error is harmless, court considers all evidence except improper evidence and then determines whether remaining evidence is strong enough to support a conviction); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) (“Guilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common-law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystallized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard.”). On consideration of all the competent evidence, I find that the sum was insufficient to prove the crime of possession with intent to sell.
In addition to the absence of a proper limiting instruction, Ferguson’s trial was tainted by improper arguments made during the closing arguments. The government’s argument included the following remarks:
*587Plus I want you to bare [sic] in mind that the defendant Alger [sic] Ferguson is not exactly a stranger to drugs. He was convicted before in the Lawrence District Court not of possession of marijuana, but of trafficking marijuana. So this is the second time around for him. I want you to also remember that that trafficking charge that he pled guilty to it, he didn’t take his chances with a jury he didn’t come in and say not guilty, he pled guilty. He admitted it, he admitted that he had it for trafficking purposes, that took place only about four months before the date of the incident he’s charged with here today.
You can let him go find him not guilty and say ah we don’t care, its [sic] just marijuana, what difference does it make, even though he’s a known trafficker just let him go, or you can say no, not going to tolerate the drug business we’re not going to let him get away with this, going to find him guilty.
This argument was improper. The jury was repeatedly invited to convict Ferguson on the basis of his prior conviction. His character for being a “trafficker” was emphasized; the resulting inference was that he was acting in conformity with that trait when arrested. There is little doubt in my mind that the jury convicted Ferguson of possession with intent to sell primarily because he had a recent conviction for the same crime, which colored all the other evidence.
The majority opinion seems to agree that, without the evidence of the prior conviction, it is doubtful whether there was enough evidence to convict Ferguson, but appears to conclude that the admission of the evidence and the jury’s unlimited use of it did not violate due process because Ferguson’s counsel failed to request a limiting instruction. I would clarify the proper analysis. The question here is not the narrow question of whether it was constitutionally impermissible for the court to admit this evidence without a limiting instruction; the question is whether it was constitutional to permit a conviction on such evidence, when this evidence was clearly allowed to be considered improperly by the jury and when it is extremely likely that the verdict was based on that critical, improper consideration. In addition, the “rationality” test of Jackson is not, as the majority indicates, the test for reviewing an admission of evidence by the trial judge; rather it is the standard for evaluating the conclusion of the jury upon all the evidence.
The evidence before us could be enough to find Algar Ferguson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of marijuana. At best, however, taking the view most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence would allow a reasonable juror to find only that it was more likely than not that Ferguson possessed the 56 grams at issue with the intent to sell them. A mere preponderance is not enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. Accordingly, I dissent.