Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see United States v. Rodebaugh, 561 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2009). On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in light of Abuelhawa v. United States, 120 S.Ct. 2102 (2009). The jury instruction in the case which permitted the jury to convict Johnson either under the theory that his use of the telephone to purchase marijuana from his co-defendant facilitated his own felony drug offense of possession with intent to distribute or under the theory that his use of the telephone facilitated his co-defendant's felony drug-distribution scheme was erroneous, and the matter is remanded for a new trial.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 13, 2009.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1581 ___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri * Bruce Allen Johnson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: June 21, 2010 Filed: August 2, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1 District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, Bruce Johnson was convicted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony controlledsubstance offense, namely possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. On appeal, Johnson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirmed. We held that a reasonable jury could have concluded Johnson's telephone call to his codefendant requesting marijuana facilitated his co-defendant's felony drug offense of possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana. United States v. Rodebaugh, 561 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Abuelhawa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2102 (2009). Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1136 (2010). In Abuelhawa, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the meaning of the word "facilitate" in § 843(b) and held that the use of a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not "facilitate" the felony offense of narcotics distribution. Abuelhawa, 129 S. Ct. at 2104. In this case, the relevant jury instruction permitted the jury to convict Johnson either under the theory that his use of the telephone to purchase marijuana from his co-defendant facilitated his own felony drug offense of possession with the intent to distribute or under the theory that his use of the telephone facilitated his co-defendant's felony drug-distribution offense. Since the latter theory would allow the jury to convict on the basis of misdemeanor purchases, we believe the jury instruction is over-inclusive and runs afoul of Abuelhawa. Given that such an error cannot be considered harmless on this record, we reverse and remand to the district court for a new trial. See United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338, 349 (8th Cir. 2011). ______________________________ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
