United States v. Lopez, No. 16-4116 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial after she was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that a DEA agent's statement was not hearsay because it was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 702; even if the agent's statement was hearsay, the admission of the statement had slight or no influence on the outcome of the trial; the agent's testimony did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction permitting an inference of "intent to distribute" based on drug purity; the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government met its burden of proof for venue; and the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Agent's testimony regarding the amount of meth a user might consume on a daily basis was based on his experience interviewing addicts, family members and arrestees, and the testimony was not hearsay and was admissible under Rule 702; because the testimony was not hearsay it was not governed by Rule 703; admission of the testimony did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; the district court did not err in giving an instruction permitting an inference of intent to distribute based on drug purity; venue as a jurisdictional fact was an appropriate subject for judicial notice, and the court did not err in finding the government met its burden of proof on venue; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of the drug 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.