United States v. Hunt
129 F.3d 739, 1997 WL 713962 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove intent to distribute a controlled substance, the government must present evidence that is more probative of distribution than of mere possession for personal use. Evidence that is equally consistent with personal use is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
Facts:
- A confidential informant told police that marijuana was being sold out of a residence leased to Latarsha Hunt.
- Police executed a search warrant on Hunt's residence.
- In the living room, police found a bag of marijuana, loose tobacco, and cigar labels.
- Under the living room couch, police discovered a loaded handgun, which Hunt later admitted she owned.
- In Hunt's bedroom, police found 7.998 grams of cocaine base (crack) and a razor blade on a plate on top of a dresser.
- The cocaine was broken into one large rock and several smaller pieces.
- Hunt was present during the search, along with her friend, Dashanta Burton, and an unidentified male juvenile.
- Hunt testified that she used marijuana but not crack cocaine and denied any knowledge of the cocaine in her room, stating Burton also had a key and was living there.
Procedural Posture:
- Latarsha Hunt was indicted in federal district court (trial court) for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute.
- The first trial resulted in a hung jury.
- A second trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Hunt (appellant) appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of 'intent to distribute'. The United States (appellee) responded to the appeal.
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 of possessing approximately eight grams of cocaine base, a razor blade, a handgun, and evidence of marijuana use, without any direct evidence of sales activity, provide sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an intent to distribute?
Opinions:
Majority - Emilio M. Garza
No. The evidence is insufficient to prove intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt because all the evidence presented by the government was equally consistent with personal use as it was with distribution. To establish intent to distribute, the evidence must be more probative of distribution than of simple possession. Here, the quantity of cocaine (7.998 grams) was not so large as to be inconsistent with personal use, a point the government conceded. The razor blade could be used to cut drugs for either personal consumption or for sale. Likewise, the presence of a gun, while a known 'tool of the trade,' was not found with the drugs and its presence alone is not dispositive of intent to distribute. Finally, the evidence of marijuana 'blunts' could indicate personal use of 'primos' (marijuana and crack combined) just as easily as it could indicate sales. Because the evidence gives 'equal or nearly equal circumstantial support' to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, a reasonable jury must entertain a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden on the government to prove the specific element of intent in a 'possession with intent to distribute' charge. The court clarifies that an accumulation of ambiguous circumstantial evidence, where each piece could plausibly support a personal use theory, cannot sustain a conviction for the more serious offense. This precedent makes it more difficult for prosecutors to secure distribution convictions based solely on possessing a moderate quantity of drugs alongside items like common household objects (razor blades) or legally owned firearms, absent more direct indicia of trafficking like scales, packaging materials, or large amounts of cash.
