United States v. Garrett, No. 17-2302 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court held that the district court did not err by refusing to give a theory of defense jury instruction where the proposed instruction misstated the law, there was a lack of evidence negating defendant's specific intent, and the district court instructed the jury, without objection, as to the knowledge and intent elements of all three offenses. The court rejected defendant's Brady claim and held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial because there was no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the lab reports been produced; defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct failed because the district court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining objections and the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming; the district court did not err by sentencing defendant as a career offender; and, even had the district court erred in sentencing defendant as a career offender, the district court would have imposed the same sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Benton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed theory-of-defense instruction on intoxication as it did not correctly state the law and was not supported by the evidence; additionally, defendant was permitted to argue that his prescription medications and marijuana use presented him for knowingly possessing the firearm in question, or intending to distribute marijuana or facilitate a drug trafficking crime; Brady argument rejected; claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument rejected; the district court did not err in concluding defendant's prior Missouri conviction for first degree domestic assault and prior Kansas conviction for attempted aggravated assault on a police officer conviction were crimes of violence qualifying defendant for career offender sentencing; even if they did not, any error was harmless, as the district court made it clear that it would have imposed the same sentence based on 3553(a) factors regardless of the advisory Guidelines range.
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.