United States v. Kizzee, 16-20397

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Citation877 F.3d 650
Docket NumberNo. 16-20397,16-20397
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Pereneal KIZZEE, Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date15 December 2017

John Richard Berry, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Yolanda Evette Jarmon, Esq., Law Office of Yolanda Jarmon, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:

DefendantAppellant Pereneal Kizzee was charged with possession of ammunition and firearms by a convicted felon (count one), possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (count two), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime (count three). Kizzee pleaded not guilty. At trial, the Government's key witness was Detective Lance Schultz. The prosecutor asked Detective Schultz about questions he posed to a criminal suspect, Carl Brown, during an interrogation. In response to Detective Schultz's questions, Brown inculpated Kizzee for distributing narcotics. But Brown did not otherwise testify, and he was not subject to cross-examination at trial. Kizzee objected based on hearsay and the Confrontation Clause, which the district court overruled. A jury found Kizzee guilty on all three counts. On appeal, Kizzee argues that the prosecutor's questions and Detective Schultz's testimony effectively admitted Brown's out-of-court statements in violation of the Confrontation Clause and the rules on hearsay. Because we find that the prosecutor's questioning of Detective Schultz admitted testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause, we VACATE Kizzee's conviction for counts two and three and REMAND for a new trial.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 4, 2014, Detective Schultz and his partner, Detective Justin Lehman, were conducting surveillance at 963 Trinity Cut Off Drive in Huntsville, Texas (the "building" or "house").1 The officers had previously received information suggesting that drugs were being sold at that location, and they were aware that Defendant Kizzee was frequently seen there during the day. During their surveillance, the officers observed Carl Brown arrive at the house, speak with Kizzee on the porch, and depart after two to three minutes. Suspecting that Brown had purchased drugs from Kizzee, the officers contacted Officer Taylor Wilkins and requested he follow Brown in order to develop probable cause and conduct a traffic stop.

Officer Wilkins testified at trial that he stopped Brown after observing a traffic violation. Officer Wilkins ordered Brown to exit the vehicle and requested permission to search his person, which Brown granted. After searching Brown, Officer Wilkins discovered a bag containing 0.54 grams of crack cocaine inside the liner of his cap. Officer Wilkins arrested Brown and transported him to the police department. At the police department, Detective Schultz questioned Brown. In response to Detective Schultz's questions, Brown stated that he purchased the narcotics found in his hat from Kizzee, and he had purchased drugs from Kizzee on previous occasions. Although Brown had served as a reliable informant for Schultz in the past, Brown later recanted his statements to Detective Schultz, denied implicating Kizzee, and indicated he did not want to testify.

After Detective Schultz questioned Brown, he obtained a search warrant for the building at 963 Trinity Cut Off Drive. On February 5, 2014, Officer Wilkins executed the search warrant with the assistance of other officers, including Agent Jared Yates. When the officers arrived, Kizzee opened the front door and peeked out of the doorway. Kizzee then shut and locked the door. The officers forced their way into the building within 45 seconds, and they found Kizzee in the bathroom filling the toilet with water from a five-gallon jug. Detective Schultz ordered Kizzee to "show me your hands and get on the ground." Kizzee looked at Detective Schultz, but continued to pour water into the toilet bowl until Schultz grabbed Kizzee and arrested him. Kizzee was removed from the house, searched, and placed in the back of a patrol unit.

The officers thoroughly searched the house and surrounding grounds. The officers took apart the plumbing associated with the toilet and searched the pipes, but found no evidence of narcotics. Ultimately, the search yielded less than a gram of crack cocaine, $1,183 in Kizzee's front pockets, two rifles, and ammunition. According to Agent Yates, the search of the house revealed no evidence of crack cocaine use, nothing consistent with drug distribution, and no proof that Kizzee destroyed any evidence. The officers found a clear plastic bag containing 0.2 grams of crack cocaine in the overflow of the bathroom sink. They also found a microwave and several Pyrex dishes and plastic bowls on the bathroom shelves. Detective Schultz testified that a Pyrex dish and two plastic bowls contained a white residue on them, but Jennifer Hass, the Government's expert witness, testified that no controlled substance was detected on these items. Two .22 caliber rifles were found in the corner of a room in the building. The officers also found several surveillance cameras still wrapped in plastic in the box, and a safe containing a money counter. Two additional rifles were found in a metal shed behind the building. The officers found three mobile phones in the house. One phone contained two missed calls from Brown's phone number, and one outgoing call to Brown's mobile phone. The calls were all made before Brown appeared at Kizzee's house on the day Brown was arrested. The phone also contained a text message warning of Brown's arrest.

Kizzee was arrested and charged with possession of ammunition and firearms by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (count one), possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) (count two), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (count three). Kizzee pleaded not guilty to all three counts.

After unsuccessfully challenging the validity of the search warrant, Kizzee stood trial. During Detective Schultz's testimony for the Government, the prosecutor inquired about Detective Schultz's questioning of Brown:

Prosecutor: Detective Schultz, did you ask Mr. Brown a series of questions after you arrived at the police department?
[Schultz]: Yes, sir, I did.
Prosecutor: Did you ask Mr. Brown whether or not he obtained the narcotics that were discovered in his hat from Pereneal Kizzee?
[Schultz]: Yes, sir, I did.
Prosecutor: Did you ask him if he obtained the narcotics that were discovered in his hat immediately prior to being stopped?
[Schultz]: Yes, sir.
Prosecutor: Did you ask Mr. Brown whether or not he had seen any additional narcotics at 963 Trinity Cut Off?
[Schultz]: Yes.
...
Prosecutor: Did you ask him whether or not he obtained drugs from Mr. Kizzee on previous occasions?
[Schultz]: Yes, sir.
Prosecutor: Based on your observations the day before that involved the surveillance at Mr. Kizzee's residence, the stop by Officer Taylor [Wilkins], the discovery of narcotics, and your subsequent interview of Mr. Brown, what did you and Detective Lehman do?
[Schultz]: I was able to obtain a search warrant for 963 Trinity Cut Off.

Defense counsel objected to this line of questioning based on hearsay and the Confrontation Clause, which the district court overruled.

The jury found Kizzee guilty on all three counts. The court sentenced him to 130 months of imprisonment, consisting of 70 months each as to counts one and two, running concurrently, followed by a consecutive term of 60 months as to count three. Kizzee timely filed a notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Confrontation Clause Violation

On appeal, Kizzee argues that Detective Schultz's testimony implicitly introduced Brown's out-of-court statements in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules.2 Kizzee properly raised a Confrontation Clause objection, thus preserving his claim of error. See United States v. Polidore , 690 F.3d 705, 710 (5th Cir. 2012). This Court "review[s] the alleged violation of the Confrontation Clause de novo, subject to a harmless error analysis." Id. (citing United States v. Bell , 367 F.3d 452, 465 (5th Cir. 2004) ). The Government has the burden of "defeating [a] properly raised Confrontation Clause objection by establishing that its evidence is non-testimonial." United States v. Duron–Caldera , 737 F.3d 988, 993 (5th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Jackson , 636 F.3d 687, 695 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2011) ).

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of "testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had [ ] a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 53–54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The Supreme Court has defined "testimony" as "[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact." Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). But "the Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’ " Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 2235, 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (quoting Crawford , 541 U.S. at 59–60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ). "Police officers cannot, through their trial testimony, refer to the substance of statements given to them by nontestifying witnesses in the course of their investigation, when those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • United States v. Buluc
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 9, 2019
    ...there is [no] reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." United States v. Kizzee , 877 F.3d 650, 661 (5th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).III.A. Appealing the denial of his acquittal motion, Buluc ......
  • United States v. Perry
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 12, 2022
    ...so minimal that "there is [no] reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction." Kizzee, 877 F.3d at 661 (alteration in original) (quoting Chapman California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)). Though the shootings at issue in Dillon's testimony were ch......
  • United States v. Sosa
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 25, 2018
    ...allow the backdoor introduction of highly inculpatory statements that the jury may also consider for their truth. United States v. Kizzee , 877 F.3d 650, 659 (5th Cir. 2017) (explaining that absent a defense challenge to the adequacy of the investigation, "there is a questionable need for p......
  • Coleman v. Vannoy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 24, 2020
    ...errors to be non-harmless because of a lack of evidence otherwise supporting the prosecution's case. See, e.g. , United States v. Kizzee , 877 F.3d 650, 662–63 (5th Cir. 2017). But the harmless-error doctrine differs in important ways from IAC prejudice. In the former, it is the state's bur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...admitted and cross-examination only produced responses of “no comment” because that cross-examination was inadequate); U.S. v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650, 661 (5th Cir. 2017) (Confrontation Clause violated by admission of detective’s trial statements that implicitly introduced witness’s out-of-co......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...statements not harmless because statements used in government’s closing argument and made essential links in evidence); U.S. v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650, 662-63 (5th Cir. 2017) (Confrontation Clause violation not harmless because remaining evidence of defendant’s guilt was circumstantial and in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT