United States v. Jacquise Miller

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 5, 2020 · No. 19-5734

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed drug trafficking and firearm convictions, holding that the district court properly admitted prior bad acts evidence (a witness's testimony of a prior drug sale) under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent, and a selfie video under Rules 401, 901, and 403 as relevant, authenticated, and not substantially more prejudicial than probative. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, including drugs, a loaded gun, scales, and expert testimony, and that a below-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. Key topics: FRE 404(b) prior acts, FRE 403 balancing, authentication, sufficiency of evidence for drug trafficking and firearm possession in furtherance, and substantive reasonableness of sentence.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
THAPAR; DONALD; NALBANDIAN
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 5, 2020
Docket number
19-5734
Procedural posture
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Standard of review
Evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion; sufficiency of evidence: de novo, viewing facts in light most favorable to government; sentencing: abuse of discretion (substantive reasonableness).
Precedential value
Unpublished
Parties
Jacquise Miller v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencesentencingstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

Criminal LawEvidenceSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in admitting testimony about a prior drug sale under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
  2. Whether the district court erred in admitting a selfie video of Miller under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 901.
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on both counts.
  4. Whether the below-guidelines sentence of 72 months and one day was substantively unreasonable.

Holdings

  1. The testimony was admissible because the jury could reasonably conclude the prior act occurred, it was offered for a proper purpose (intent), and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
  2. The selfie video was admissible because it was relevant to intent, properly authenticated, and not substantially more prejudicial than probative.
  3. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on both counts.
  4. The below-guidelines sentence of 72 months and one day was substantively reasonable.

Key quotations

The role of the trial judge is to determine what evidence is admissible—not to step into the role of the jury and weigh the evidence. (at 1)
similar act evidence is relevant . . . if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor. (at 2)
no rational juror could have convicted Miller, even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the government and making all credibility judgments 'in the jury’s favor.' (at 6)

Factual background

Miller parked his car in an alley of a housing project and walked away when an officer approached. The officer smelled burnt marijuana and saw marijuana in plain sight in Miller's car. A search warrant was obtained, and officers found multiple bags of marijuana, a bag of cocaine, a marijuana cigarette, two cell phones, a loaded gun, and digital scales. A witness testified that she saw Miller engage in an apparent drug sale a few weeks earlier in the same alley, where he weighed crack cocaine on a scale and exchanged it for cash. A selfie video recorded three days before the arrest showed Miller saying 'I ain't got nothing right now, man, Ima have something in a little bit' in the same housing project.

Procedural history

Miller was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. After a four-day trial, the jury convicted Miller on both counts. Miller appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…