Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Drew Clark committed a series of crimes on May 26, 2021, including three car thefts, home invasions, and brandishing a stolen firearm. He was convicted by a jury of possessing a stolen firearm, three counts of carjacking, and three counts of brandishing a firearm during the carjackings. The district court sentenced him to 339 months in prison. Clark appealed his conviction on two carjacking and associated brandishing charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially reviewed the case. At trial, Clark moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts, which the district court denied. After the jury convicted Clark on all counts, the court considered supplemental briefs regarding two specific counts and denied Clark’s motion for acquittal in a written post-trial order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the jury’s verdict, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Clark guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that Clark’s actions during the carjackings, including brandishing a firearm to gain control of the vehicles, met the legal requirements for carjacking and brandishing charges. The court distinguished this case from others by noting that Clark’s use of force was necessary to complete the carjackings. The court also found that Clark’s intent to cause harm was evident from his actions, even if he did not explicitly threaten to kill or seriously harm the victims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Descart Begay, Jr. was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse and aggravated sexual abuse of S.S., a former coworker. After reconnecting via Facebook, Begay visited S.S. at her home on the Red Lake reservation in Minnesota. During his visit, he forcibly raped her twice, once in her bedroom and again near the front door as she tried to escape with her son. S.S. managed to flee and reported the incident to her mother and the police. Begay was arrested shortly after attempting to hide from the officers.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota conducted a five-day trial, after which the jury found Begay guilty of two counts each of sexual abuse and aggravated sexual abuse. The district court sentenced him to 200 months in prison. Begay appealed, challenging the evidence presented at trial and the sentence imposed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Begay argued that the jury heard too much from the government and too little from him, particularly objecting to the admission of S.S.'s prior consistent statements. The court found that these statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut charges of recent fabrication and to rehabilitate S.S.'s credibility. The court also addressed Begay's claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by limiting cross-examination about S.S.'s sexual history, concluding that any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.Regarding sentencing, the court upheld the district court's application of enhancements for causing serious bodily injury and physically restraining the victim. The court found that S.S.'s lasting psychological damage justified the serious bodily injury enhancement and that the physical restraint enhancement did not constitute double counting.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "U.S. v. Begay" on Justia Law

Christian Carrillo Topete was convicted of possessing child pornography, with some images involving minors under 12 years old. The key issue was whether his prior conviction for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse under Iowa law triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years under federal law, which applies if the prior conviction "relates to sexual abuse."The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa reviewed Carrillo Topete's criminal history and determined that his prior conviction did indeed relate to sexual abuse. Consequently, the court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of ten years in prison, which was three years more than he would have received without the prior conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court applied the categorical approach, focusing on the statutory definition of the prior offense rather than the specific facts of the case. The court found that the Iowa statute for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse fits within the federal definition of sexual abuse, which includes physical or nonphysical misuse or maltreatment for sexual gratification. The court also noted that the phrase "relating to" in the federal statute allows for a broader interpretation, encompassing a wider range of prior convictions.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Carrillo Topete's prior conviction for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse under Iowa law qualifies as a conviction relating to sexual abuse under federal law, thereby justifying the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. View "United States v. Topete" on Justia Law

While patrolling Interstate 40 in Lonoke County, Arkansas, State Police Corporal Travis May stopped Tommy Collier for drifting into the shoulder. May noticed Collier's shaking hands, a disorderly car interior, and an unusual travel itinerary, which aroused his suspicion. Collier, a resident of Mississippi, was driving a car rented in Las Vegas with a Utah license plate. After Collier declined a search request, May called a K-9 unit. The drug-detection dog, Raptor, alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search that uncovered ten bundles of cocaine. Collier was arrested and later indicted for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas conducted the trial, where Collier was found guilty by a jury. The court imposed a statutory minimum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Collier appealed, raising several issues, including the reliability of the drug-detection dog, the admission of expert testimony, the standard for a motion to suppress, and the adequacy of Rule 16(a) disclosures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on all issues. It held that the drug-detection dog, Raptor, was reliable and that its alert provided probable cause for the search. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony from Major Roby Rhoads and Senior Forensic Chemist Dan Hedges. The court rejected Collier's argument regarding the standard for a motion to suppress, stating that the district court's evaluation for reasonableness was appropriate. Additionally, the court found no prejudice in the government's Rule 16(a) disclosures and upheld the district court's denial of Collier's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the cocaine isomer defense. Finally, the court ruled that a curative instruction was sufficient to address the government's brief comment on Collier's post-Miranda silence, and there was no plain error in the instruction given. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Collier" on Justia Law

Anthony Fisher, while burglarizing a home, encountered the homeowner and shot him multiple times. Fisher, a felon at the time, was charged by the federal government with unlawful possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The jury found Fisher guilty. On appeal, Fisher argued that he lacked knowledge of his prohibited status when he possessed the ammunition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa oversaw the trial. Fisher contended that he did not know he was a felon when he possessed the ammunition. The jury, however, found sufficient evidence to convict him. Fisher was sentenced to 120 months in prison, the statutory maximum, despite the Sentencing Guidelines suggesting a longer term.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that Fisher knew of his felon status when he possessed the ammunition. The court noted that Fisher had pleaded guilty to an Iowa felony in 2020, signed documents acknowledging his felony status, and had a probation agreement that explicitly stated his crime was a felony. Additionally, Fisher's probation officer testified that his felony status affected his employment opportunities. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Fisher knew he was a felon based on this evidence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's finding that Fisher knew of his prohibited status when he possessed the ammunition. View "United States v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Marcus Millsap was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), aiding and abetting attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Millsap was involved with the New Aryan Empire, a white-supremacist organization engaged in drug trafficking. He assisted the organization's president, Wesley Gullett, in drug operations and attempted to retaliate against Bruce Hurley, a police informant, by offering money to have him killed. Gullett attempted to kill Hurley but failed, and Hurley was later murdered by an unknown perpetrator.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas sentenced Millsap to life imprisonment. Millsap appealed, arguing that his indictment should have been dismissed due to a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, and that the district court made several errors regarding evidentiary issues and juror intimidation. He also challenged his sentence if the convictions were upheld.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act did not apply because Millsap was transferred to federal custody via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum before a detainer was lodged. The court also held that there was no sufficient showing of juror intimidation to justify a mistrial. The court found the evidence sufficient to support Millsap's convictions on all counts, including his association with the drug-trafficking enterprise and his involvement in the attempted murder of Hurley.The court also ruled that the district court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements and other evidence, and that any potential errors were harmless. The court upheld the district court's application of sentencing enhancements and the calculation of Millsap's criminal history points. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Millsap" on Justia Law

Darris Lamar Mull pleaded guilty to four counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation report (PSR) assessed a base offense level of 20 due to the involvement of a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Mull objected, arguing that his co-defendant was responsible for that firearm. The district court overruled the objection and sentenced Mull to 135 months’ imprisonment. Mull appealed, challenging the application of the sentencing enhancement and arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially reviewed the case. Mull objected to the PSR's findings, particularly the base offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). The district court found that Mull's offense involved a semiautomatic firearm with a large capacity magazine and overruled his objection. The court adopted the PSR's factual content and calculations, sentencing Mull to 135 months based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in applying the § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) enhancement. It found that Mull and his co-defendant engaged in jointly undertaken criminal activity, making Mull accountable for the co-defendant's possession and use of the firearm. The court also rejected Mull's Second Amendment challenge, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, maintaining Mull's 135-month sentence. View "United States v. Mull" on Justia Law

In 2011, Shawn Scherer was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Shortly after beginning his supervised release, he tested positive for methamphetamine and absconded, leading to the revocation of his supervised release in June 2020. He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment and three more years of supervised release. Scherer violated the conditions of his second supervised-release term, resulting in another revocation in April 2021 and a sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release. During his third term, he again violated conditions, leading to state charges and federal revocation proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota revoked Scherer’s supervised release multiple times due to repeated violations, including drug use and absconding from reentry centers. At his latest revocation hearing, Scherer admitted to the violations. The government requested a sentence within the Guidelines’ range of 8 to 14 months, while Scherer’s counsel highlighted his positive activities while incarcerated. The district court, however, noted Scherer’s consistent non-compliance with supervised release conditions and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Scherer argued that the district court abused its discretion by limiting his counsel’s argument and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Eighth Circuit held that any error in limiting counsel’s argument was harmless, as the mitigating factors were already presented through other means. The court also found the 36-month sentence substantively reasonable, given Scherer’s repeated violations and failure to comply with supervised release conditions. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Scherer" on Justia Law

Henry Dailey began a ten-year term of supervised release after serving a prison sentence for his involvement in a commercial sex trafficking ring. Four months into his supervised release, his Probation Officer filed a Violation Report alleging numerous violations of his release conditions. Dailey admitted to most of the violations, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 6 to 12 months imprisonment. Despite a joint recommendation for 6 months imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised release, the district court sentenced Dailey to 12 months imprisonment followed by 240 months of supervised release.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially sentenced Dailey to 84 months imprisonment followed by 120 months of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to one count of Interstate Transportation for Prostitution. Upon completing his prison term, Dailey began his supervised release in November 2022. In March 2023, his Probation Officer reported multiple violations, including failing to register internet-capable devices and involvement in drug sales. At a preliminary revocation hearing, the magistrate judge found probable cause to proceed. Dailey later stipulated to most violations but contested some allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Dailey appealed the new term of supervised release, alleging procedural errors and a substantively unreasonable sentence. The appellate court found no procedural error, noting that the district court did not base its sentence on unproven allegations and allowed Dailey ample opportunity to defend against the contested violations. The court also found the 240-month term of supervised release substantively reasonable, given Dailey's criminal history and repeated violations. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Dailey" on Justia Law

Christopher Lockhart, a licensed Arkansas bail bondsman and private investigator, was stopped by Siloam Springs police officer Zachary Ware around 3:30 AM on March 11, 2019, for alleged traffic violations. Lockhart was arrested and charged with DWI, careless driving, and driving left of center. After refusing a plea deal, Lockhart was tried for DWI but was found not guilty. Subsequently, Lockhart filed a § 1983 action against multiple defendants, including claims of unreasonable stop, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims but allowed Lockhart’s illegal stop and false arrest claims against Officer Ware and the malicious prosecution claim against Siloam Springs to proceed. The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Officer Ware had probable cause to stop Lockhart, as the dashcam video did not conclusively support Ware’s testimony. The court also denied summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, finding a material fact dispute about whether the prosecutor had probable cause to try Lockhart for DWI.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Officer Ware had probable cause to stop Lockhart for careless driving, as Lockhart’s tires touched the centerline, which under Arkansas law constitutes a traffic violation. The court reversed the district court’s decision regarding the initial stop and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining issues. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, agreeing that Arkansas statutory immunity does not apply to intentional torts like malicious prosecution. View "Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas" on Justia Law