United States v. Hickman, No. 13-2675 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. The court concluded that the admission of a witness's identifications during the police interview and at trial did not violate defendant's due process rights and were not based on impermissibly suggestive police procedures; evidence of defendant's prior involvement in cocaine distribution was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to show motive and intent, and the evidence was not too remote in time nor was it more prejudicial than probative; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in admitting a witness's identification of defendant at her initial police interview and again at trial as the identifications were based on the witness's personal contact with defendant and not on impermissibly-suggestive police procedures; no error in admitting evidence of defendant's prior involvement in cocaine distribution as the prior acts were not too remote in time and the acts were similar to those charged here; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
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.