U.S. v. Howell, 93-3493
| Decision Date | 10 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-3493,93-3493 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Harvey HOWELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Curtis L. Blood, Collinsville, IL, argued, for appellant.
Michael Price, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cape Girardeau, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Ronald Harvey Howell appeals his conviction for growing marijuana with intent to distribute and for maintaining a place for the purpose of growing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 856(a)(1). Howell argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of either charge and therefore the district court 1 erred in denying his post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
The government's trial evidence. In 1988, Howell pleaded guilty in state court to growing a small amount of marijuana and was placed on probation for five years. In the summer of 1991, drug enforcement agents in Arkansas and southeastern Missouri were told that Howell was growing marijuana near the Howell family farm operations but were unable to find any marijuana. In September, acting on a citizen's anonymous but precise tip, agents found 67 marijuana plants growing in a field of soybeans on property owned by Howell's grandmother and leased to his father.
Howell and his father admitted that Howell had cultivated and sprayed the field with herbicide in late June, and that no one had tended it since then. The government's experts testified that the marijuana plants were started in small pots and transplanted to the field before it was sprayed and cultivated. Based on the pattern of weed growth in the field, a government witness opined that the person who applied the herbicide had avoided those areas where the marijuana was growing. The Howells admitted using a combination of herbicides that would have killed or injured the marijuana plants on contact.
After pulling up the marijuana plants, the agents searched Howell's house with his consent. In the attic, they discovered a grow light, other equipment suitable for starting plants indoors, and traces of potting soil on the floor, but no marijuana seeds or plants. Two days later, a helicopter search of the area uncovered twenty-five additional marijuana plants growing in a soybean field on Howell's father's property. Howell did not recall whether he had sprayed and cultivated that field as well.
The defense evidence. Howell testified in his own defense and denied any knowledge of the growing marijuana. Howell and his wife testified that she had used the grow equipment in the attic to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Gilbert
...USSG app. C., amend. 568, as recognized in United States v. Carter, 490 F.3d 641, 646 (8th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a defendant's conviction under § 856(a)(1), where the defendant had ......
-
U.S. v. Morgan
...is sufficient to support a maintenance finding. See United States v. Basinger, 60 F.3d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir.1994). We are wary of equating possession with maintenance by holding that any time the evidence would support a finding that ......
-
U.S. v. Payton
...defendant's “dominion and control” over a place may be sufficient to show that he “maintains” that place, see United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam), but ... proof of “dominion and control” is not necessary to establish “maintenance” under section 856(a)(1), s......
-
U.S.A v. Payton
...defendant's "dominion and control" over a place may be sufficient to show that he "maintains" that place, see United States v. Howell, 31 F.3d 740, 741 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), but... proof of "dominion and control" is not necessary to establish "maintenance" under section 856(a)(1), s......