United States v. Candy Jenkins
2003 WL 22303609, 345 F.3d 928 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's personal use of a controlled substance is not probative of their knowledge or intent to distribute that substance and is generally inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) due to its highly prejudicial nature. To sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute a specific drug, the government must present sufficient evidence proving the defendant knew the package they possessed contained that particular substance, as mere suspicion is inadequate.
Facts:
- Carla 'Rabbit' Johnson contacted Candy Jenkins and asked if she would accept packages delivered through the U.S. Mail at her home.
- An individual named Brian Ingram would pick up the packages from Jenkins and pay her $50 for each one she received.
- From May to September 2001, Jenkins received approximately two packages per month under this arrangement.
- On September 25, 2001, a U.S. Postal Supervisor, Mark Cooley, became suspicious of an express mail package addressed to Jenkins and contacted Postal Inspector Bradley Kramer.
- Law enforcement arranged a controlled delivery of the package to Jenkins's residence at 813 College Street.
- A postal employee delivered the package, and Jenkins signed for it and took it inside her home.
- When confronted by law enforcement, Jenkins consented to a search, and officers found the package unopened on a chair.
- Jenkins initially told officers she was receiving the package for 'Sarah Johnson' but later admitted this was false and described the arrangement with Johnson and Ingram.
- During questioning, Jenkins admitted to being a user of crack cocaine but stated she obtained it from someone other than Ingram.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government indicted Candy Jenkins in U.S. District Court on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base.
- Jenkins pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury.
- During the trial, the court admitted prior mailing labels as business records and admitted testimony about Jenkins's personal crack use under FRE 404(b) to show knowledge.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The district court sentenced Jenkins to 121 months of imprisonment.
- Jenkins, as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging both her conviction and sentence, against the United States, as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a defendant received sealed packages for payment, made an initially false exculpatory statement, and admitted to personal use of the same controlled substance found in the package, constitute sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly possessed that specific substance with the intent to distribute?
Opinions:
Majority - Mills, District Judge
No. The government failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jenkins knowingly possessed crack cocaine with the intent to distribute. The court reasoned that the district court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of Jenkins’s personal crack cocaine use under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). This evidence was not probative of her knowledge of the package's contents because personal use is of a 'wholly different order' than distribution, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Without this improperly admitted evidence, the remaining evidence—receiving payment for sealed packages, an ambiguous conversation with police, and an initial false statement—amounted to mere suspicion, which is insufficient to prove she knew the package specifically contained crack cocaine, a required element of the charged offense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the distinction between evidence of personal drug use and evidence of drug distribution under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). It establishes a strong precedent that prosecutors cannot use a defendant's admission of personal use to prove knowledge or intent in a distribution case, as such evidence is deemed highly prejudicial and not probative of commercial activity. The ruling raises the evidentiary bar for the government in 'blind mule' cases, requiring more direct or substantial circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant's specific knowledge of the type of contraband being transported. This makes it more difficult to secure convictions based on ambiguous statements or generalized suspicion alone.
