United States v. Brown, No. 22-2343 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseIn this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a conviction against Richard Lee David Brown for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Law enforcement found Brown in an apartment during the execution of a search warrant, along with drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a cell phone that Brown admitted was his. Brown appealed his conviction, alleging multiple pre-trial and trial-related errors. However, the court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Brown's claims that he was improperly denied a jury instruction regarding "mere presence," that the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, among other issues. The court held that the instructions given to the jury were adequate and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also found that Brown's claims of ineffective assistance were best left for a post-conviction relief proceeding, such as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court concluded that none of the alleged errors either individually or cumulatively warranted reversal of the conviction.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The court would not consider evidence not presented to the district court and defendant's motion to expand the record on appeal is denied; the district court did not plainly err in admitting defendant's statements concerning ownership of a cell phone and its phone number as the record does not indicate whether the statements were made before or after Miranda warnings; it was not plain error to admit evidence concerning a drug transaction defendant participated in prior to the raid on the apartment; evidentiary challenges, including challenges to admission of defendant's prior drug-related convictions, rejected; the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a "mere presence" instruction; denial of a trial continuance was not an abuse of the district court's broad discretion in such matters; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute; no error in denying motion for a new trial; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel would not be considered in this direct appeal; cumulative-effect-of-errors argument rejected. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
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.