United States v. Johnson, No. 12-2321 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence stemming from various drug and firearm offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial where the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that there was an agreement to distribute heroin in the Waterloo area, that defendant was aware of this agreement, and that defendant knowingly contributed to the furtherance of this agreement; the district court's failure to include the names of coconspirators in the jury instructions was not a constructive amendment of the indictment; no variance existed between the indictment and the government's proof; the district court did not err in giving certain jury instructions; and the court rejected defendant's contention that his sentence was inconsistent with the district court's oral pronouncement of sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin; because the identity of defendant's coconspirators was not an essential element of the conspiracy, the district court's failure to include their names in the jury instruction was not a constructive amendment of the indictment; presentation of evidence that defendant conspired with indicted and unindicted coconspirators was not a constructive amendment of the indictment or a variance; claim that the government charged a single conspiracy and proved multiple conspiracies rejected; rejection of defendant's requests for instructions on single v. multiple conspiracy and buyer-seller relationship was not error; an instruction requiring proof that a detectable (as opposed to measurable) amount of a controlled substance was knowingly and intentionally distributed is sufficient to sustain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a); while the oral pronouncement of sentence is controlling, when the oral pronouncement does not resolve whether sentences are concurrent or consecutive, the clearly expressed intent of the sentencing judge as set out in the written judgment and commitment may properly serve to resolve the issue.
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.