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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The court concluded that the district court did not err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal where the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions; the district court did not err by denying his motions to exclude evidence of prior drug and alcohol use; the district court did not err by excluding expert testimony and his request for a Daubert hearing where the district court determined that no hearing was necessary and the experts were qualified based on their knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education; the district court did not err by excluding text messages between defendant and the victim as hearsay; and any error in excluding specific details of the victim's misbehavior was harmless. View "United States v. Aungie" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a charge of assaulting a dating partner by strangulation or suffocation. The district court instructed the jury on both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense of simple assault. The jury acquitted defendant of assault by strangulation, and convicted him of simple assault. Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that defendant waived his challenge to the district court's decision to give a lesser-included instruction on simple assault because he invited the alleged error by agreeing that simple assault was "the appropriate lesser-included offense." Even if defendant had not waived his challenge, the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the instruction. In this case, the court applied the elements test to identify the relevant offense: a lesser crime is necessarily included in the greater if the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. The court concluded that the elements of simple assault are a subset of the elements of assault by strangulation. View "United States v. Stricker" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress in an action where defendant was convicted of robbing or attempting to rob multiple stores around the Twin Cities. Law enforcement identified defendant by searching cellular-tower records, which showed that defendant's cell phone was at or near at least four of the robberies.In this case, the affidavits for the search warrants explained why there was a fair probability that the cellular-tower records would identify the robber. Considered in their totality, the court concluded that the facts provided a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. The court explained that the judges knew from the affidavits that the robberies were connected by a common modus operandi; that the robber likely carried a cell phone, even if he did not use it during the robberies; and that comparing the numbers from cellular-tower records could reveal his true identity. Furthermore, the search warrants were constrained both geographically and temporally. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for stealing opioids and other pain medications from 14 pain patients while she was working as a hospice nurse. The court concluded that the district court did not err in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3A1.1(b)(2)(B) for an offense involving a large number of vulnerable victims. In this case, the district court emphasized defendant's "hands-on conduct" and the fact that she had a special responsibility as a nurse to give her patients the pain medication they needed. The district court recognized that although 14 may not be a large number in other circumstances, this crime exceeded the number of vulnerable victims typically found in offenses of like kind. View "United States v. Boll" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute marijuana and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer a nexus between defendant's handgun and his drug trafficking offense. The court also concluded that the district court's finding regarding the drug amount was plausible in light of the record as a whole. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in refusing to give defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility after he pleaded guilty at the eleventh-hour and decided to force the government to prove its case on the firearm charge. View "United States v. Tan Fong Vang" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a 24-month sentence after revocation of defendant's term of supervised release. After defendant was involved in a fight outside of a strip club, defendant's probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release.The court agreed with the district court's rejection of defendant's self-defense argument, seeing no self-defense justification that warranted defendant leaving his vehicle to attack others. Moreover, the assault on defendant at the strip club was both temporally and spatially distinct from the assault that defendant committed in the truck parking lot. The court also concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug-related evidence that police uncovered during a traffic stop. The court agreed with the government that the officer who pulled over defendant and others in the vehicle did not extend the traffic stop until he asked the driver of the vehicle if there was anything illegal in the car roughly six minutes into the encounter. In this case, when the officer asked his initial series of travel-related questions between five and six minutes into the encounter, he was still handling the matter for which the stop was made -- issuing a ticket for the unlit license plate violation. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the officer needed reasonable suspicion of another crime to extend the stop when he began asking travel-related questions five minutes into the encounter. The court also agreed with the government that by the time the officer asked if there was anything illegal in the car, he had the reasonable suspicion required to extend the stop. View "United States v. Callison" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana. The court rejected defendant's contention that his prosecution violated principles of federalism because marijuana production is legal under Oregon law. The court concluded that defendant's prosecution does not offend principles of federalism and thus the challenge to his conviction fails.The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in its supplemental instructions to the jury regarding the conspiracy, and the district court's response to a jury question properly instructed the jury. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in applying a USSG 3B1.1(b) enhancement based on defendant's role as a manager or supervisor, and in denying safety valve relief. View "United States v. Maupin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for receiving a firearm while under indictment. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; the district court did not violate his constitutional right to self-representation where the district court acted well within its discretion in denying defendant's eve-of-trial motion for a lengthy continuance and the district court had given an explicit warning that a continuance would not be granted; the district court had a sound basis for its decision to strike a juror for cause where the juror was unable to state he would serve fairly and impartially; the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decisions; and the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence even though it imposed a significant upward variance and consecutive sentences. View "United States v. Ganter" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of cyberstalking, and two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's guilty plea for attempted sexual exploitation. In this case, the government explained that defendant had captured several videos of the victim with hidden cameras, and defendant agreed with the facts surrounding all three of his charges. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that his 30-month sentence for cyberstalking should run consecutive to his 210-month sentence for attempted sexual exploitation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McGarvey" on Justia Law