United States v. Terrell Davis
92 Fed. R. Serv. 123, 2013 WL 4035547, 726 F.3d 434 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), a defendant's prior convictions for simple drug possession are generally not admissible to prove knowledge or intent in a subsequent prosecution for possession with intent to distribute.
Facts:
- Two Philadelphia police officers, Gilliam and Witherspoon, observed Terrell Davis and Jamar Blackshear in a parked, running Jeep in a high-crime area.
- The officers witnessed the men engage in body motions they believed were consistent with a narcotics transaction.
- As the officers approached, Davis and Blackshear showed expressions of shock, tossed an item into the backseat, and quickly exited the vehicle.
- The officers stopped both men and found a large wad of cash on each of them.
- A subsequent search of the Jeep revealed a handgun, ten cell phones, and an open shopping bag in the backseat containing approximately 740 grams of cocaine compressed into a brick shape.
- Davis had two prior convictions from 2007 and 2008 for possessing cocaine under Pennsylvania law, but no details about the quantity or form of the cocaine from those incidents were available.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrell Davis was charged in U.S. District Court with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
- Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the Jeep, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial stop.
- The District Court, a trial court, denied the suppression motion after a hearing.
- The government filed a pre-trial motion to introduce evidence of Davis's two prior state convictions for cocaine possession.
- The District Court granted the government's motion, ruling the prior convictions were admissible under FRE 404(b) to prove Davis's knowledge.
- Following a trial, the jury convicted Davis on the drug charge but acquitted him on the firearm charge.
- The District Court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Davis, who then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permit the admission of a defendant's prior convictions for simple drug possession to prove knowledge or intent in a subsequent prosecution for possession with intent to distribute?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Circuit Judge
No, a defendant's prior convictions for simple drug possession are not admissible to prove knowledge or intent in a trial for possession with intent to distribute. The court reasoned that possessing drugs and distributing drugs are fundamentally different acts. A prior conviction for possession, without more information, is not relevant to proving a defendant's knowledge of drugs in a distributable quantity or form, as the packaging, quantity, and appearance can be vastly different from drugs for personal use. Similarly, a past act of possession does not logically imply a future intent to distribute, as personal use and commercial drug trafficking are distinct activities. Admitting such evidence creates a high risk of the jury making a forbidden propensity inference—that because the defendant used drugs before, he is more likely to be a drug dealer now—which is precisely what Rule 404(b) is designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in drug prosecutions within the Third Circuit. It establishes a clear doctrinal line differentiating between prior acts of simple possession and prior acts of distribution, holding that the former cannot be used to prove intent for the latter. This ruling heightens the government's burden by requiring a more direct and logical connection between a prior act and the specific mental state at issue in the current charge. It prevents prosecutors from using a defendant's history as a drug user as propensity evidence to brand them a distributor, thereby strengthening the protective function of the character evidence rule.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Terrell Davis