United States v. Wes Davenport

1 F. App'x 608
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 19, 2001
Docket00-2719
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 F. App'x 608 (United States v. Wes Davenport) 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. Wes Davenport, 1 F. App'x 608 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wes Davenport was a confidential informant who occasionally purchased illegal drugs from dealers for the North Little Rock police. On October 31, 1998, he was stopped for speeding and, during a pat-down search, officers found a handgun and crack cocaine. Davenport was arrested and charged with drug and weapons offenses. Davenport was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Davenport asserts the district court committed error in refusing to give a jury instruction on his public authority defense. We disagree. The evidence showed Davenport was acting on his own when he sold crack cocaine to an informant and undercover officer on October 27, 1998, and Davenport was not under the supervision or control of the investigators when he was found in possession of crack cocaine and a firearm on October 31, 1998. Because Davenport failed to prove he reasonably relied on the representation of a government official in possessing the gun and drugs, the district court properly refused to give the instruction. See United States v. Achter, 52 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1995). Davenport also contends the district court committed error in refusing to allow him to ask a police witness a hypothetical question about whether it would be reasonable for a confidential informant to disarm someone during a drug deal. Because Davenport was not acting in a controlled buy situation during the events alleged in the indictment, the hypothetical question assumed *610 facts different from those presented and would have confused and misled the jury. See Iconco v. Jensen Construction Co., 622 F.2d 1291, 1301 (8th Cir.1980). The district court thus properly refused the proposed hypothetical. Accordingly, we affirm Davenport’s conviction.

A true copy.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. App'x 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wes-davenport-ca8-2001.