United States v. King, No. 17-1140 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant King's sentence and Defendant Raines' conviction and sentence for charges related to their involvement in the operation of a pill mill. The court rejected Raines' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving a willful blindness jury instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to provide Raines' good faith instruction; the evidence was sufficient for a jury to easily find that Raines was involved in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances without an effective prescription; the district court did not clearly err in making its drug quantity calculations; the district court did not err by applying an abuse of trust enhancement to Raines' sentence; and both defendants' sentences were substantively reasonable.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In prosecution for operating a pill mill, the admission of Prescription Monitoring Program data offered by the government was not not erroneous as the information in the data was corroborated by other evidence; no error in admitting testimony from the government's physician expert regarding standard of medical care and the PMP data; no error in admitting testimony from defendant Raines's co-worker and fellow nurse regarding her observations and knowledge as it was circumstantial evidence on defendant Raines's knowledge or willful blindness; any error in admitting a videotape of the pill mill's operation shot by an informant was harmless as the video was cumulative and consistent with the extensive testimony concerning daily operations at the clinic; no error in giving a willful blindness instruction; no error in rejecting defendant Raines's good faith instruction as it was not an accurate statement of the law; evidence was sufficient to support Raines's conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances without an effective prescription; Raines's challenge to drug quantity calculations rejected; no error in imposing an abuse-of-trust enhancement for defendant Raines; both Raines's and King's sentences were substantively reasonable.
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.