United States v. Turner

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
June 28, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-2295
v. (D. New M exico)
DAV ID LEE TURNER, (D.C. No. CR-04-1849-JH)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M U RPH Y, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
I. Introduction
Appellant David Lee Turner w as convicted of possession with intent to
distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A ). In this appeal, Turner alleges his Sixth Amendment rights
were violated by the admission of testimonial hearsay statements regarding the
weight of the marijuana seized from his truck. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude Turner has not met his burden of demonstrating
plain error and affirm his conviction.
II. Background
On July 19, 2004, Turner entered a border patrol checkpoint near
Alamogordo, New M exico. As Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Ortiz questioned
Turner about his citizenship, he detected a strong odor of marijuana in the cab of
Turner’s tractor-trailer rig. Ortiz directed Turner to a secondary inspection area
where Agent M att Carpela ran a drug-detecting dog around the truck. The dog
alerted to the presence of narcotics in the cab area. Carpela searched the cab and
found three duffle bags containing a substance that field-tested as marijuana.
Carpela testified he “was told by other agents” that the marijuana found in the
cab weighed 168 pounds.
Agent Carpela also physically inspected the inside of Turner’s trailer,
discovering sixteen large, shrink-wrapped boxes which were inconsistent with the
rest of Turner’s load. Ten agents assisted Ortiz and Carpela in removing the
boxes from the trailer and Carpela testified each box was too heavy for one
person to lift. The boxes contained individually wrapped bundles of marijuana
which were weighed by the agents. Carpela was involved in opening the boxes,
placing the bundles on the scale, and restacking the bundles. Carpela testified the
total weight of the marijuana found in the trailer exceeded 1000 kilograms but
admitted on cross-examination that he did not personally calculate the total
-2-
weight. Ortiz, however, testified that sixteen boxes were removed from the
trailer and the total weight of the marijuana in those boxes w as 3532 pounds,
which is more than 1000 kilograms. Turner did not object to the foundation of
Ortiz’s testimony and Ortiz was not cross-examined.
DEA Agent Amy Billhymer obtained samples of the marijuana found in the
cab and trailer of Turner’s rig and sent those samples to a DEA laboratory. The
samples were analyzed by DEA forensic chemist Allayne Furguson. Relying on
the information recorded on Government Exhibit 15, Furguson testified the
marijuana seized from Turner’s cab weighed 70.7 kilograms and the marijuana
found in the trailer weighed 1344.2 kilograms. Government Exhibit 15 was
admitted into evidence without any objection from Turner and is comprised of
two documents both entitled, “Report of Drug Property Collected, Purchased or
Seized.”
The jury found Turner guilty of the drug charge and he was sentenced to
121 months’ imprisonment. Turner then filed this appeal, challenging his
conviction.
III. Discussion
Turner argues his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated by
the admission of testimonial hearsay offered to prove the weight of the marijuana
seized from his truck. Because Turner did not bring this alleged constitutional
error to the attention of the district court, we review for plain error. United
-3-
States v. Solomon, 399 F.3d 1231, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[W]here a
Confrontation Clause objection is not explicitly made below we will not address
the constitutional issue in the absence of a conclusion that it was plain error for
the district court to fail to raise the constitutional issue sua sponte.” (quotation
omitted)). To meet his burden under the plain error analysis, Turner must show
the district court (1) committed error, (2) that was plain, and (3) affected his
substantial rights. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th
Cir. 2005) (en banc). Even if Turner can meet this burden, this court will not
notice the error unless he can also demonstrate it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Because Turner is alleging constitutional error, we apply the plain error rule less
rigidly. United States v. James, 257 F.3d 1173, 1182 (10th Cir. 2001).
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), the Supreme Court
held the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of
testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had an
earlier opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 68. The Court did not
define testimonial hearsay, but stated the term “applies at a minimum to prior
testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and
to police interrogations.” Id. Interpreting Crawford, this court has held a
“statement is testimonial if a reasonable person in the position of the declarant
would objectively foresee that his statement might be used in the investigation or
-4-
prosecution of a crime.” United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1302 (10th
Cir. 2005). Turner asserts all the Government’s evidence relating to the weight
of the marijuana found in his truck, including the testimony of Ortiz, Carpela, and
Furguson and the information on the weight of the marijuana recorded on the
documents admitted as G overnment Exhibit 15, is testimonial hearsay admitted in
violation of the Confrontation Clause. He further argues the district court’s error
in admitting the testimony was plain because it was contrary to Crawford. See
United States v. Whitney, 229 F.3d 1296, 1309 (10th Cir. 2000).
The Government concedes both Carpela’s testimony that someone told him
the marijuana in the duffle bags w eighed 168 pounds and the information in
Government Exhibit 15 regarding the weight of the marijuana are hearsay.
However, it disputes Turner’s contention Ortiz’s testimony as to the weight of the
marijuana found in the trailer was hearsay, let alone testimonial hearsay. 1 Ortiz
did not testify he personally weighed the marijuana from the trailer. Carpela,
however, testified Ortiz was present when the boxes were unloaded and further
testified the agents weighed the bundles of marijuana as they removed them from
the boxes. Ortiz testified he helped re-stack the bundles. W hen asked the weight
of the marijuana discovered in the boxes, Ortiz answered, “3,532 pounds.”
1
The Government also argues Carpela’s testimony regarding the weight of
the marijuana found in the trailer w as not hearsay. W hile the merits of this
argument are debatable, it is unnecessary to address the issue to resolve this
appeal.
-5-
Turner asserts Ortiz did not have first-hand knowledge of the total weight of the
marijuana but at trial he did not challenge the foundation of Ortiz’s testimony and
Ortiz w as not cross-examined on the issue. “To the extent a lack of foundation in
some answers makes it unclear whether certain testimony was based on personal
knowledge or hearsay, we conclude that admitting such evidence in the absence
of an objection [does] not constitute plain error.” United States v. Nieto, 60 F.3d
1464, 1468 (10th Cir. 1995). Because Turner’s argument has no support in the
record, we conclude the admission of Ortiz’s statement was not error.
Having concluded it was not plain error to admit Ortiz’s testimony
regarding the w eight of the marijuana found in the trailer, it becomes unnecessary
for us to decide whether the remainder of the challenged evidence is testimonial
hearsay prohibited by Crawford. Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal
that Turner is able to satisfy the first two prongs of the plain-error test as to the
admission of that additional evidence, he cannot meet his burden under the third
prong.
To satisfy the third prong of the plain-error test, Turner “bears the burden
of establishing the error impacted substantial rights by demonstrating the
outcome of the trial would have been different but for the error.” United States v.
Harlow, 444 F.3d 1255, 1261 (10th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Turner must show
there is a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged error, the jury would not
have found the w eight of the marijuana exceeded 1000 kilograms. There was,
-6-
however, a significant amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding. In
addition to Ortiz’s uncontroverted testimony that the drugs found in Turner’s
trailer weighed more than 1000 kilograms, the Government introduced
photographs of the sixteen enormous boxes removed from the trailer and the
bundles of marijuana removed from those boxes. In light of this evidence, we
cannot conclude there is a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged
testimonial hearsay, the jury would not have found the marijuana w eighed more
than 1000 kilograms.
IV. Conclusion
B ecause Turner cannot satisfy the third prong of the plain error test, we
affirm his conviction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
M ichael R. M urphy
Circuit Judge
-7-