USA v. Frederick Bush

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Frederick Bush. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 1 of 9

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15401
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00077-MW-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK BUSH,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 21, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 2 of 9

Frederick Bush appeals his conviction at trial for possession of a controlled
substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(C). On appeal, he first argues that the district court abused its discretion by
admitting testimony regarding his involvement in three earlier controlled drug
sales arranged by the Leon County Sheriff’s Office. Second, he contends that the
court abused its discretion by admitting a photograph seized from his cell phone,
allegedly depicting crack cocaine. For ease of reference, we will address each
point in turn.
(1) The Controlled Buys
Generally, we review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2013).
However, a pre-trial objection does not preserve the issue for appeal; a party must
properly object at trial to preserve the issue. United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d
1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2011). If the issue was not preserved by a proper objection
at trial, we only review for plain error. Id. Additionally, the harmless error
standard applies to erroneous evidentiary rulings. United States v. Henderson, 409
F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005). An error is harmless unless it had a substantial
influence on the case’s outcome or leaves a grave doubt as to whether the error
affected the outcome. Id. When the erroneously admitted evidence was not

2

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 3 of 9

integral to the government’s case, it was likely harmless. See id. Likewise, error
may be harmless when abundant evidence supports the government’s case. See
United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298, 1315 (11th Cir. 2012).
Because the standard of review will not change our resolution of Bush’s
appeal, we will assume without deciding that he sufficiently preserved his
arguments in the district court, and we will review them for abuse of discretion.
Rule 404(b) does not apply when evidence of a prior offense is intrinsic to
the charged offense. See United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir.
2007). Evidence of another crime is intrinsic when (1) the uncharged offense arose
out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) it
is necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) it is inextricably intertwined
with the evidence regarding the charged offense. See id. Evidence is inextricably
intertwined when it tends to corroborate, explain, or provide necessary context for
evidence regarding the charged offense. See United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d
1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2000).
Even if evidence of other crimes is extrinsic, it may be admissible for
another purpose, such as to demonstrate motive, intent, absence of mistake, or lack
of accident. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). To be admissible, Rule 404(b) evidence
must (1) be relevant to one of the enumerated issues other than the defendant’s
character, (2) be supported by sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine that
3

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 4 of 9

the defendant committed the act, and (3) not be unduly prejudicial under the
standard set forth in Rule 403. United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317
(11th Cir. 2000).
Regarding the first prong of the Rule 404(b) test, a criminal defendant makes
his intent relevant by pleading not guilty. United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355,
1358 (11th Cir. 1998). Additionally, evidence that a defendant engaged in similar
behavior in the past makes it more likely that he did so knowingly, and not because
of accident or mistake, on the current occasion. See United States v. Jernigan, 341
F.3d 1273, 1281-82 (11th Cir. 2003). As to the second prong of the Rule 404(b)
test, there is sufficient proof of the other acts if a jury could find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. See Edouard,
485 F.3d at 1345. A single witness’s uncorroborated testimony can provide an
adequate basis for a jury to find that the prior act occurred. See United States v.
Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1187 (11th Cir. 2011). Under the third prong, we
conduct a Rule 403 analysis to determine whether the probative value of the
evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See United
States v. Baron-Soto, 820 F.3d 409, 417 (11th Cir. 2016).
All evidence, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, must satisfy the requirements of
Rule 403. Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344. Under Rule 403, the district court may
exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is “substantially outweighed” by a
4

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 5 of 9

danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. A prior drug offense is highly
probative to counter a defendant’s “mere presence” defense and prove his intent.
United States v. Delgado, 56 F.3d 1357, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995). Temporal
remoteness is an important factor in determining probative value. United States v.
Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005). However, we have not adopted a
bright-line rule on the issue, and the appellant bears a heavy burden to establish
that the district court erred by admitting a temporally remote offense. Id. We have
also held that prior drug offenses are unlikely to be highly prejudicial, see
Delgado, 56 F.3d at 1366, and a district court’s limiting instruction can reduce the
risk of any unfair prejudice, Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346.
The district court did not err in admitting the evidence of the controlled
buys, because it constituted intrinsic evidence and, therefore, was not subject to
analysis under Rule 404(b). One witness’s testimony that Bush may have been
involved in crack distribution at the Mahan Drive residence just before October 3
strengthens the link between Bush and the seized drugs. If the jury accepted that
witness’s testimony and rejected Bush’s, it could reasonably infer that Bush was
still dealing crack from the Mahan Drive residence on October 3. Thus, Green’s
testimony regarding the three controlled buys was intrinsic, because it
corroborated, explained, and provided necessary context for the charged offense.

5

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 6 of 9

See Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1250. Because the evidence was intrinsic, it was not
subject to a Rule 404(b) analysis. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344.
Although the controlled buys were outside the scope of Rule 404(b), the
evidence was still subject to a Rule 403 analysis. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344.
Evidence that Bush had repeatedly engaged in crack sales at the Mahan Drive
residence was highly probative to prove Bush’s intent in the charged offense and
counter his “mere presence” defense. See Delgado, 56 F.3d at 1366. The evidence
was also unlikely to be highly prejudicial, because the controlled buys were drug
offenses. See id. Thus, Bush failed to demonstrate that the prejudicial effect of the
evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.
Also, even if the controlled buys constituted extrinsic evidence, the district
court did not err, because the evidence met the requirements of Rule 404(b).
Under the first prong of the analysis, Bush made his intent relevant by pleading not
guilty to the charges. See Zapata, 139 F.3d at 1358. Evidence that Bush engaged
in crack sales at the Mahan Drive residence in August and September made it more
likely that he knew crack was present at the residence on October 3, 2014 and
intended to sell it. See Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1281-82. For the second prong, the
aforementioned witness testified that the cooperating source had money, but no
drugs, on his person before he made contact with Bush for the controlled buys.
The witness then testified that the source had crack on his person after making
6

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 7 of 9

contact with Bush. Thus, the government presented sufficient evidence to allow a
jury to determine that Bush sold crack to the source on those dates. See
Barrington, 648 F.3d at 1187. The third prong also favors admission of the
evidence. As discussed above, Rule 403 did not require exclusion of the evidence,
because the probative value of the controlled buys was not outweighed by the
prejudicial effect. See Baron-Soto, 820 F.3d at 417.
Finally, any error in admitting the evidence of the controlled buys was
harmless. The controlled buys established Bush’s past involvement in crack
distribution at the Mahan Drive residence. However, Bush freely admitted to
selling crack at the residence at the time the controlled buys occurred. Other
evidence showed that Bush was likely still living at the residence, was alone in the
room where much of the evidence was located, had prior convictions for cocaine
possession and distribution, had sent incriminating text messages, and confessed
the crime to two fellow inmates. Thus, the evidence was not integral to the
government’s case, and substantial other evidence supported the conviction. See
Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1300; see Sanders, 668 F.3d at 1315.

(2) The Photograph
Rule 404(b) applies to the admission of the “crack donut” photograph
because it constituted extrinsic evidence of a prior crime. It did not arise from the
7

Case: 15-15401

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 8 of 9

same transaction or series of transactions of the charged offense, was not necessary
to complete the story of the charged offense, and was not inextricably intertwined
with the evidence regarding the charged offense. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344.
The “crack donut” photograph could still be admitted if it met the requirements of
Rule 404(b). See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Here, the photograph was properly admitted because it met the three
requirements of Rule 404(b). First, the photograph demonstrated Bush’s past
participation in crack manufacturing and, therefore, was relevant to his intent to
engage in the charged offense of possession with intent to distribute. See Jernigan,
341 F.3d at 1281-82. Second, an additional witness testified that Bush told the
story of making the crack donut and taking a picture of it. A third witness later
corroborated the second witness when he testified that a photo of a donut-shaped
portion of crack was found on Bush’s phone. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to
allow the jury to determine that Bush made the donut and took the picture. See
Barrington, 648 F.3d at 1187.

Third, the photograph, like the controlled buys,

was highly probative to establish Bush’s intent to distribute crack and counter his
“mere presence” defense. See Delgado, 56 F.3d at 1366. Also like the controlled
buys, the “crack donut” was evidence of a drug offense and, therefore, unlikely to
be highly prejudicial. See id. The court additionally gave limiting instructions in
conjunction with the second witness’s testimony, further limiting the potential for
8

Case: 15-15401

undue prejudice.

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346.

Page: 9 of 9

Therefore, Bush has not

demonstrated that the prejudicial effect of the photograph substantially outweighed
its probative value.
Moreover, even if the court erred in admitting the photograph, such error
was harmless. The photograph helped establish Bush’s knowledge of and past
involvement in crack manufacturing. However, Bush freely admitted to selling
crack prior to his arrest. Other evidence showed that Bush was likely still living at
the residence, was alone in the room where much of the evidence was located, had
prior convictions for cocaine possession and distribution, had sent incriminating
text messages, and confessed the crime to two fellow inmates.

Thus, the

photograph was not integral to the government’s case, and substantial other
evidence supported the conviction. See Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1300; see Sanders,
668 F.3d at 1315. Accordingly, we affirm Bush’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.

9