US v. Eric Morrison, No. 10-5194 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5194 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC WILFORD MORRISON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-2) Submitted: July 5, 2011 Decided: July 20, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Maria K. Vento, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Eric Wilford Morrison of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). He appeals, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to exclude evidence. At testimony Finding no error, we affirm. Morrison s from a trial, number of the Government witnesses presented regarding Morrison s involvement in selling powder and crack cocaine. also presented evidence of ion scan results The Government indicating the presence of cocaine on money that law enforcement seized from Morrison s front pants pocket at the time of his arrest. Morrison challenges the ion scan evidence, contending that the ion scan method was not reliable. We review the district court s evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. 470 (4th Cir. United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468, 2007). Expert testimony is admissible Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it concerns: under (1) scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that (2) will aid the jury or other trier of fact to understand or resolve a fact at issue. 592 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, (1993). The reasoning and methodology expert s proffered opinion must be reliable. 95. underlying an See id., at 593- The district court conducted a Daubert hearing, at which 2 the Government s expert testified on direct and cross examination regarding the reliability of the ion scan results. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results into evidence. Moreover, we agree with the Government that even if the district court erred by admitting the ion scan evidence, any error was harmless. 637 (4th Cir. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 2009) (explaining district court s rulings are subject to harmless error review). presented substantial evidence of evidentiary The Government Morrison s involvement in selling powder and crack cocaine during the charged conspiracy. See id. ( Erroneously reviewing court pondering all is admitted able that to evidence say, happened with without is fair harmless assurance, stripping the if a after erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. ) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense contentions the court with oral argument are adequately and argument because presented would not in aid the the the facts and materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
