United States v. Bruce Johnson

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bruce Johnson

450 F. App'x 543

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2011

Docket08-1581

StatusUnpublished

This text of 450 F. App'x 543 (United States v. Bruce Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bruce Johnson, 450 F. App'x 543 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Bruce Johnson was convicted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony controlled-substance offense, namely possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. On appeal, Johnson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirmed. We held that a reasonable jury could have concluded Johnson’s telephone call to his codefendant requesting marijuana facilitated his co-defendant’s felony drug offense of possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana. *544 United States v. Rodebaugh, 561 F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir.2009). The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816, 129 S.Ct. 2102, 173 L.Ed.2d 982 (2009). Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1136, 175 L.Ed.2d 968 (2010). In Abuelhawa, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the meaning of the word “facilitate” in § 843(b) and held that the use of a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not “facilitate” the felony offense of narcotics distribution. Abuelhawa, 129 S.Ct. at 2104. In this case, the relevant jury instruction permitted the jury to convict Johnson either under the theory that his use of the telephone to purchase marijuana from his co-defendant facilitated his own felony drug offense of possession with the intent to distribute or under the theory that his use of the telephone facilitated his co-defendant’s felony drug-distribution offense. Since the latter theory would allow the jury to convict on the basis of misdemeanor purchases, we believe the jury instruction is over-inclusive and runs afoul of Abuelhawa. Given that such an error cannot be considered harmless on this record, we reverse and remand to the district court for a new trial. See United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338, 349 (8th Cir.2011).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Bruce Johnson was convicted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony controlled-substance offense, namely possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. On appeal, Johnson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirmed. We held that a reasonable jury could have concluded Johnson’s telephone call to his codefendant requesting marijuana facilitated his co-defendant’s felony drug offense of possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana. *544 United States v. Rodebaugh, 561 F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir.2009). The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Abuelhawa v. United States, 556 U.S. 816, 129 S.Ct. 2102, 173 L.Ed.2d 982 (2009). Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1136, 175 L.Ed.2d 968 (2010). In Abuelhawa, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the meaning of the word “facilitate” in § 843(b) and held that the use of a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not “facilitate” the felony offense of narcotics distribution. Abuelhawa, 129 S.Ct. at 2104. In this case, the relevant jury instruction permitted the jury to convict Johnson either under the theory that his use of the telephone to purchase marijuana from his co-defendant facilitated his own felony drug offense of possession with the intent to distribute or under the theory that his use of the telephone facilitated his co-defendant’s felony drug-distribution offense. Since the latter theory would allow the jury to convict on the basis of misdemeanor purchases, we believe the jury instruction is over-inclusive and runs afoul of Abuelhawa. Given that such an error cannot be considered harmless on this record, we reverse and remand to the district court for a new trial. See United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338, 349 (8th Cir.2011).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F. App'x 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bruce-johnson-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack