United States v. Thomas Nathaniel Wood and David Leslie Wood
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14524, 57 F. 3d 913 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant can be convicted of "maintaining a place" for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) even if they do not own the property, as long as they exercise control over the specific area where evidence of drug trafficking is found.
Facts:
- Eugene Norwell, a National Forest Service officer, discovered three patches of cultivated marijuana on National Forest land during aerial surveillance.
- A ground check revealed the plants were growing in man-made mounds, and surrounding vegetation had been cut away to expose them to sunlight.
- Officers installed a remote camera at one of the patches, which recorded Thomas Wood and his brother, David Wood, tending to the plants on multiple occasions.
- The videotapes showed the Wood brothers "working" the plants by topping them to promote growth and carrying plastic jugs, indicating they were watering and cultivating the marijuana.
- Federal agents executed a search warrant at the home of Thomas Wood’s parents, where Thomas lived for two months of the year.
- In the bedroom Thomas used, agents found a paper sack of marijuana, seeds, and paraphernalia; in his car parked outside, they found scales, more paraphernalia, and twelve freshly pulled marijuana plants in the trunk.
- A separate search of David Wood's residence uncovered processed marijuana, stalks, scales, plastic baggies, and other paraphernalia.
- At trial, both brothers admitted to visiting the patches and using marijuana but claimed they found the plants by accident and denied cultivating them for distribution.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas and David Wood were charged in a U.S. District Court with conspiracy, manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, and maintaining a place for drug manufacturing.
- A fifth count, for managing a building for unlawful drug activity, was dismissed by the government prior to trial.
- Immediately before trial, the court held a hearing on David Wood’s request for a new attorney and denied the request.
- A jury convicted both defendants on all remaining counts.
- The trial court judge sentenced Thomas Wood to 97 months and David Wood to 78 months, applying sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice based on a finding of perjury.
- Thomas and David Wood (appellants) appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 a defendant "maintain a place" for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) when they do not own the residence but live there for part of the year and control the specific area where evidence of drug trafficking is found?
Opinions:
Majority - Seymour, Chief Judge
Yes. A defendant "maintains a place" for drug manufacturing or distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) if they exercise control over the area used for the illegal activity, regardless of ownership or continuous residency. Citing the recent precedent of United States v. Verners, the court reasoned that the crucial element is control, not property rights. In Verners, a conviction was upheld for a defendant who did not live at his mother's house but controlled a room where drug activity occurred. Here, the facts are even stronger, as Thomas Wood not only controlled the rooms where drug trafficking evidence was found but also lived at the residence for two months a year. This level of control is sufficient to satisfy the statute's "maintain" element. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support convictions on all other counts, including conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, based on the videotapes, the large quantity of drugs, and the presence of scales and baggies. Finally, the court upheld the sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice, finding that the trial judge correctly determined the defendants committed perjury by testifying falsely about their involvement with the marijuana patches.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the scope of criminal liability under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for "maintaining" a drug-involved premises. By following the precedent set in United States v. Verners, the court confirms that the legal inquiry focuses on the defendant's dominion and control over the specific location of the illicit activity, not on formal property ownership or full-time residency. This interpretation makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions against individuals who use a portion of a property they do not own, such as a bedroom in a parent's or friend's home, to facilitate drug operations. The case signals that functional control is more important than legal title in establishing liability under this statute.
