U.S. v. Robinson, 88-3506
| Decision Date | 19 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3506,88-3506 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank ROBINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Donald S. Modesitt, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Michael T. Simpson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, VANCE and COX, Circuit Judges.
The issue on this appeal is whether the possession of 25.2 grams of crack cocaine is sufficient to support a jury verdict convicting Frank Robinson, Jr. of possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841. Defendant contends (1) the court abused its discretion in allowing a police officer to testify for the prosecution as an expert on the crack cocaine trade in Tallahassee, and (2) without that testimony, the amount involved was insufficient evidence of Robinson's intent to distribute the drug. We affirm.
The Government sought to prove that 25.2 grams of crack cocaine was a sufficient amount from which an intent to distribute could be inferred by the testimony of an expert witness. William Nathan Hurlburt II had been a Tallahassee police officer for over six years. He worked four and one-half years in an area of the city where the major law enforcement problem was crack cocaine. He had arrested approximately one hundred suspects for crack cocaine offenses. For the eight months prior to trial, he was a member of a police unit whose sole responsibility was to investigate crack cocaine offenses. The district court's ruling that the officer was qualified to offer an expert opinion on the subject of crack cocaine dealing and use in Tallahassee was not erroneous. See United States v. Costa, 691 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (11th Cir.1982).
Officer Hurlburt testified that the crack cocaine, 25.2 grams worth about $2,000, which police recovered when they apprehended Robinson was an extremely large amount for a mere user to possess. Hurlburt indicated that the two thousand dollars worth of cocaine base could be cut into small individual doses of approximately two dollars each. From this evidence the jury could reasonably have inferred that Robinson intended to distribute a substantial part of the cocaine he possessed.
Robinson contends that, irrespective of the officer's testimony, 25.2 grams of cocaine is insufficient as a matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Mosley
...the issue has reached this same conclusion. United States v. Williams, 876 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612, 613 (11th Cir.1989) as quoted in United States v. Catchings, 922 F.2d 777, 780, fn. 3 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Solomon, 848 F.2d at ......
-
United States v. Preston, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 12-138 SECTION "K"(1)
...presence of distribution paraphernalia, large quantities of cash, or the value and quality of the substance. See United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612, 613 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Castellanos, 731 F.2d 979, 985 (D.C.Cir.1984); United States v. Glenn, 667 F.2d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir......
-
U.S. v. Ricks
...packaging suggestive of distribution and presence of loaded pistol, sufficient to support intent to distribute); United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612, 613 (11th Cir.1989) (25.2 grams of cocaine base legally sufficient to support intent to distribute); United States v. Dunn, 846 F.2d 761,......
-
U.S. v. Frazier
...smuggling, United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1348-49 (11th Cir.1999); crack cocaine distribution, United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612, 613 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); counterfeiting, United States v. Burchfield, 719 F.2d 356, 358 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); and arson, Unite......
-
The trouble with trade dress protection of product design.
...regimes. See id. at 15-16 & n.46 (discussing the positions of European countries). (9) See, e.g., Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 870 F.2d 612, 616-17 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that nonfunctional utility patent designs may be protected as trademarks upon expiration of the patent term); ......