United States v. Misher
99 F.3d 664, 1996 WL 630812 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a drug conspiracy case, a defendant's plea of not guilty places their intent at issue, permitting the admission of evidence of prior extrinsic drug offenses under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to establish criminal intent.
Facts:
- From 1989 to 1993, Keith O. Cobb operated a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy in Waco, Texas.
- Anthony Lamone Misher, Ricky E. Levi, and Rodney Earl Heslip (Cobb's half-brother) all worked with Cobb in distributing cocaine.
- Witnesses testified that Misher and Cobb sold cocaine as a team, that Levi and Cobb operated crack houses together, and that Heslip knowingly drove a car from which Misher sold cocaine.
- Cobb purchased a 1984 Jaguar for $14,500 in cash, using a suitcase full of small bills, and titled the vehicle under a fictitious name.
- Levi purchased a 1964 Chevrolet pick-up truck with cash in small denominations, which was later found in his garage.
- At trial, a witness testified that he had previously sold significant quantities of marijuana to both Cobb and Levi.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas indicted Anthony Lamone Misher, Ricky E. Levi, Rodney Earl Heslip, and Keith O. Cobb on charges of drug conspiracy and, for Cobb and Levi, money laundering.
- The case was tried before a jury in the district court.
- The jury convicted all appellants on all counts with which they were charged.
- The district court sentenced the appellants to significant terms of imprisonment.
- The convicted defendants, Misher, Levi, Heslip, and Cobb, appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 the admission of a defendant's extrinsic, uncharged drug offenses to prove intent constitute reversible plain error in a drug conspiracy case where the defendant has pleaded not guilty?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Reynaldo G. Garza
No. The admission of the defendants' extrinsic drug offenses does not constitute reversible plain error because when a defendant pleads not guilty in a drug conspiracy case, their intent becomes a central issue, making evidence of past drug transactions relevant and admissible. The court applied a two-pronged test from United States v. Beechum for admitting evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). First, the evidence of prior marijuana sales was relevant to an issue other than character, namely, the defendants' criminal intent, which they placed at issue with their 'not guilty' pleas. Second, the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for undue prejudice. The court noted that precedent in the Fifth Circuit frequently holds that evidence of a defendant's extrinsic drug offenses is admissible in drug cases and that the admission of such evidence in this case was not erroneous, let alone plain error.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a defendant's 'not guilty' plea in a drug conspiracy case effectively opens the door for prosecutors to introduce evidence of prior drug-related activities to prove intent. It reinforces the Fifth Circuit's broad acceptance of such evidence under Rule 404(b), viewing it as highly probative and generally not unduly prejudicial. For future cases, this precedent makes it significantly more challenging for defendants to exclude their criminal history related to drug offenses, thereby strengthening the prosecution's ability to establish the element of criminal intent in conspiracy charges.
