Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit • 2013

United States v. Terrell Davis

726 F.3d 434 | 92 Fed. R. Serv. 123 | 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16527

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that prior simple-possession convictions cannot be used as a shortcut to prove knowledge or intent in a later drug-distribution prosecution without concrete, nonpropensity evidence linking the past conduct to the charged offense.

Background

Philadelphia police officers saw Terrell Davis and Jamar Blackshear sitting in a rented Jeep in a high-crime area. The officers testified that, through the untinted front window, they observed movements consistent with an exchange, followed by shocked expressions and motions suggesting that the men tossed something into the backseat when they noticed police. Davis and Blackshear then quickly exited the Jeep and walked away; Blackshear left his door open.

The officers stopped and frisked both men, finding substantial wads of cash. Believing they had interrupted a drug transaction and that weapons might be in the Jeep, an officer looked inside through the open door and found a handgun. A further search revealed shopping bags containing about 740 grams of brick-shaped cocaine, as well as phones and other items. Police later obtained a warrant to recover the evidence.

Davis moved to suppress the Jeep evidence, arguing that the tinted driver-side window made the officers' account impossible. Although the window was tinted when the District Court inspected it eight months after the arrest, the court credited testimony that it had been untinted at the time of the encounter and denied suppression. At Davis's subsequent trial for possession with intent to distribute and a firearm offense, the District Court admitted two prior Pennsylvania convictions for cocaine possession under Rule 404(b), reasoning that they showed Davis knew the substance in the Jeep was cocaine. The jury convicted Davis of the drug offense but acquitted him of the firearm offense. Davis appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the officers' stop of Davis and protective search of the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

No. The officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Davis and a reasonable basis to search the Jeep's passenger compartment for weapons.

Reasoning

The Court deferred to the District Court's factual finding that the Jeep's front driver-side window was not tinted on the day of the arrest. That finding was supported by both officers' testimony, by the rental-company employee's testimony that neither the manufacturer nor Enterprise had tinted the window, and by the fact that more than fifty renters had used the Jeep before the suppression hearing. The contrary photograph was taken at night, and the District Court permissibly found the competing witness insufficiently credible.

Viewed together, the officers' observations created reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was underway. They saw what appeared to be an exchange, noticed the men's shocked reaction to police, saw tossing movements toward the backseat, and watched both men rapidly leave the running Jeep. The setting in a high-crime area added context but was not the sole basis for the stop.

The protective vehicle search was also permissible under Michigan v. Long. The officers had found large amounts of cash on Davis and Blackshear, reinforcing their reasonable belief that a drug transaction was occurring; because drug dealing commonly involves firearms, they had a specific and articulable basis to believe weapons could be accessible in the Jeep. Once lawfully searching for weapons, they were not required to disregard the cocaine they discovered.

Issue #2

Whether Davis's prior convictions for cocaine possession were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge or intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

Holding

No. The bare fact of Davis's prior cocaine-possession convictions was not probative, apart from an impermissible propensity inference, of his knowledge of the cocaine in the Jeep or his intent to distribute it.

Reasoning

Rule 404(b) bars other-acts evidence when its relevance depends on the forbidden inference that a person who committed a crime before is more likely to have committed the charged crime. Although knowledge and intent are proper nonpropensity purposes in the abstract, the government must articulate a concrete chain of reasoning connecting the prior act to the disputed issue without relying on character or propensity.

The possession convictions did not meaningfully show that Davis recognized the nearly one kilogram of compressed cocaine in the Jeep. The jury was told nothing about the quantity, packaging, or form of cocaine involved in the earlier convictions. Without those facts, it could not determine whether Davis's past experience enabled him to identify the brick-shaped cocaine recovered here; the earlier cocaine could have been a different form, including crack cocaine, or possessed in circumstances bearing no resemblance to this case.

The convictions likewise did not show an intent to distribute. Personal possession and commercial distribution are distinct activities with different purposes and risks, and a prior intent to possess drugs does not logically establish a later intent to sell them. Treating any drug-possession conviction as proof of distribution intent would effectively invite the prohibited conclusion that a drug user has the character of a drug dealer.

The Court distinguished prior Third Circuit decisions admitting evidence of earlier drug distribution or trafficking. Distribution can support a nonpropensity inference about a defendant's familiarity with drug dealing or intent in a later trafficking case; simple possession does not carry the same implication. At most, the convictions had minimal probative value that was substantially outweighed by their serious danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

The trial court's limiting-instruction errors reinforced the problem. It did not give a requested limiting instruction when the convictions were introduced, and its final charge allowed the jury to use them for a broad list of purposes beyond the court's stated knowledge rationale. But the central defect was more fundamental: no instruction could cure evidence that was inadmissible for any proper purpose. The government did not argue harmless error, and the Court declined to find the error harmless on its own.