United States v. Kenny Eugene Smart

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Kenny Eugene Smart’s convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The court rejected challenges concerning sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, alleged Brady violations, and supervised-release revocation. Based on an intervening armed-career-criminal decision, the court remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Smart's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because the evidence did not weigh heavily against the verdict and no miscarriage of justice occurred.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Smart's prior convictions to prove permissible issues including felon status, knowledge, intent, and possession; any error was harmless.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded jail calls or Brian Larson's testimony concerning Smart's attempts to influence or intimidate a witness.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior theft convictions of government witnesses because Smart did not establish that the convictions involved dishonesty or false statement, and the convictions were more than ten years old.
6. Admission of the photograph did not warrant reversal because the photograph had an adequate foundation, any Rule 403 objection was at most plain error, and any error was harmless.
7. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a standalone addict-informer instruction.
8. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a separate mere-presence instruction because the instructions as a whole required more than mere presence or proximity.
9. The government's post-trial disclosure of the pole-camera footage did not warrant a new trial because Smart failed to show materiality sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict.
10. The government's failure to disclose the later Turner interview did not warrant a new trial because the information was not materially different from information already disclosed to the defense.
11. The court declined to address Smart's ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal because this was not an exceptional case and the record was not sufficiently developed.
12. In light of United States v. Perez, the case had to be remanded for further proceedings on whether Smart's Iowa drug convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses; the court did not decide the merits.
13. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Smart's supervised release because the underlying convictions were affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Smart constructively possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in admitting prior convictions, recorded jail calls, witness testimony, and a posed photograph.
3. Whether the district court improperly refused requested addict-informer and mere-presence jury instructions.
4. Whether alleged suppression of pole-camera footage and a witness interview violated Brady v. Maryland and required a new trial.
5. Whether Smart's ineffective-assistance claims were reviewable and meritorious on direct appeal.
6. Whether Smart's Iowa drug convictions qualified as Armed Career Criminal Act predicate offenses.
7. Whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking supervised release based on the convictions.

Disposition

vacated