United States v. Campbell , 256 F. App'x 546 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-3-2007
USA v. Campbell
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2681
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Campbell" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 146.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/146
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2681
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROY CAMPBELL,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00658)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 28, 2007
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: December 3, 2007)
OPINION
GARTH, Circuit Judge:
Roy Campbell (“Campbell”) appeals his conviction following a jury trial for dealing
in firearms without a license. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18
U.S.C. § 3231. For the following reasons, we will affirm his conviction.
I.
Because we write only for the parties’ benefit, we will only recite those facts
essential to decide this appeal. Campbell was charged in a two count superseding
indictment of conspiring to deal in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
371, 922(a)(1)(A) (“Count I”), and dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A) and (2) (“Count II”). On October 6, 2004, a jury acquitted
Campbell on Count I but convicted him on Count II.
The charges against Campbell stemmed from his illegal purchase of firearms in
Colorado, which he sold to an individual in New Jersey. The evidence adduced at trial
established that Campbell, a resident of New Jersey, purchased at least 86 handguns in
Colorado while pretending to be a Colorado resident. He then transported those firearms
back to New Jersey, where he sold them for a profit to a member of the gang, the
“Bloods.” Campbell committed these acts even though he never obtained a license to
deal in firearms. The guns were later recovered in crime scenes in Newark and East
Orange, New Jersey, all within a four-mile radius of Campbell’s home.
II.
The first issue Campbell raises on appeal concerns the Government’s conduct at
trial. During Campbell’s cross examination, the prosecutor used a chart-sized notepad to
chronicle his various trips to Colorado. On the chart, the prosecutor wrote “Roy
Campbell’s Excellent Denver Adventure.”1 Campbell’s attorney objected to this
1
This was an apparent reference to the movie, “Bill & Ted’s Excellent
Adventure.”
comment and requested a curative jury instruction. The trial judge sustained the objection
and promised to instruct the jury “to forget about” the chart. However, when the time
came to instruct the jury, the trial judge never provided the instruction. Moreover,
Campbell raised no objection to the trial judge’s failure to provide the instruction.
Campbell contends that the Government’s conduct, and the trial judge’s failure to
provide a curative instruction, warranted a mistrial. Because Campbell never requested a
mistrial when he objected to the Government’s conduct, nor objected when the trial judge
failed to provide the instruction, we review these matters for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P.
30(d); see also United States v. Richards, 241 F.3d 335, 342 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding that
where defendant objected to a Jencks Act violation but did not request mistrial we review
for plain error). Plain error occurs only when the error is clear and obvious and affects
substantial rights. United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3d Cir. 2001). Substantial
rights are affected if the error was sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the
trial. Id.; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). A favorable
exercise of discretion to correct plain error is warranted if the defendant is actually
innocent or the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Wolfe, 245 F.3d at 261. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A defendant has the burden of establishing plain error. Id. “In order to
demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct under a plain error standard, the review must reveal
egregious error or a manifest miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d
176, 182 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, we find
no error.
By titling the chart as he did, the prosecutor appears to have attempted to interject
humor into Campbell’s trial. When Campbell’s attorney objected to the Government’s
conduct, the trial judge immediately excused the jury and ordered the comment
expurgated. The prosecutor then flipped over the chart and, the following day, removed
the offending comment entirely so that it could not be seen by the jury.
In sum, Campbell has failed to show that the prosecutor’s conduct affected his
substantial rights or actually affected the outcome of the trial. The lack of a curative
instruction does not change this analysis. Accordingly, Campbell failed to show that the
trial court committed plain error warranting a new trial.
III.
The next error Campbell raises concerns the prosecutor’s comments during
summation. At the end of his initial summation, the prosecutor commented about the
anticipated remarks from defense counsel, Mr. Roberts, by stating:
Now, Mr. Roberts is going to come up and he is going to talk to
you and he will attempt to explain how these guns showed up in
Newark and East Orange with obliterated serial numbers in the
hands of Bloods gang members.
But, I would like you to think about certain questions and see if
Mr. Roberts answers those questions to your satisfaction while
he is trying to explain all of this away....
If the defendant sold all 86 guns to ABC Loan as he stated, how
come he didn’t keep the receipt? And see if Mr. Roberts can
explain that. Why, if the defendant sold the guns to ABC Loan
store in March of 2000 as he explained, how five of those guns
just happened to follow him to Newark and East Orange and end
up in the hands of Bloods gang members.
S.A. 608-09. Campbell contends that these remarks were improper because they
improperly shifted the burden of producing evidence onto him. He also argues that the
remarks openly challenged him to present a summation even though he was not obligated
to do so. Finally, Campbell contends that the comments regarding the gang members
were factually inaccurate and not in evidence. Because Campbell failed to raise any of
these objections at trial, we will review them for plain error. United States v. Moore, 375
F.3d 259, 263 (3d Cir. 2005). Again, we find no error.
Campbell’s assertion that the above-quoted summation amounted to improper
burden-shifting by the Government lacks merit. We have explained that there is nothing
improper about a prosecutor “attempt[ing] to focus the jury’s attention on holes in the
defense’s theory.” United States v. Balter, 91 F.3d 427, 441 (3d Cir. 1996). Such
comments do “not implicate any of the burden-shifting concerns that are raised when a
prosecutor points to a defendant’s failure to testify or improperly suggests that the
defendant has the burden of producing evidence.” Id.2
Campbell’s argument that the Government’s remarks challenged him to provide a
summation is likewise meritless. Even if such conduct by the Government could be
considered sufficient to warrant retrial under the plain error standard, the record shows
that Campbell’s counsel gave every indication at trial that he would provide a summation.
2
Campbell also argues that the prosecutor’s posing of rhetorical questions
constituted prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree. See United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d
190, 213 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that the use of a rhetorical question during rebuttal
summation fell far short of the showing necessary to establish misconduct).
(S.A. 501-02, 609.) Furthermore, the Government’s assertion that gang members
ultimately received the weapons was supported by the record. (S.A. 184-206.)
In sum, the District Court committed no plain error no allowing the above-quoted
summation.
IV.
Finally, Campbell raises an argument concerning the trial court’s jury instruction
on Count II, dealing in firearms without a license. The trial court instructed the jury that
Campbell could be found guilty of this count if he aided and abetted another person in the
commission of that offense. Campbell argues that this instruction was improper because
it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause’s prohibition against duplicitous charges in
indictments (i.e., charging two or more distinct offenses in the same count). Again, since
Campbell never raised this argument at trial, we review it for plain error. United States v.
Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2005).3
Again, we find no plain error. It is well-established that the aiding and abetting
statute for which Campbell was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 2, “‘is an alternative charge in
every count, whether explicit or implicit.’” United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 95 (3d
Cir. 1973) (quoting United States v. Bullock, 451 F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 1971)); see also
3
There is some evidence that this matter was brought to the trial court’s attention
when the jurors, during their deliberations, sent the judge a note asking whether they had
to determine whether Campbell aided and abetted the commission of the offense charged
in Count II (S.A. 661-67). The record shows that the trial judge heard argument on the
issue and that Campbell’s counsel expressed some concerns about the charge. However,
the record shows that Campbell never raised any objection during the reading of the
charge (S.A. 570-71), or at the charge conference held prior to the reading (S.A. 531-43).
Therefore, we will review this matter for plain error. Fed R. Crim. P. 30(d).
United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1132 (3d Cir. 1990) (“Federal courts have
long recognized that a defendant indicted as a principal may be convicted upon proof that
he aided and abetted the charged offense.”). Accordingly, we find no plain error.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm Campbell’s conviction.
7