US v. Curtis Schoolfield
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS L. SCHOOLFIELD, a/k/a Smoosh, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00103-JFM-1)
June 19, 2008
June 24, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight E. Crawley, LAW OFFICES OF DWIGHT E. CRAWLEY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: After a jury trial, Curtis L. Schoolfield was convicted of various crack the cocaine offenses. of Alfonso On appeal, Schoolfield
evidence at trial.
Harmon testified that he purchased drugs from Harmon spoke and
Schoolfield in controlled buys on three occasions. with Schoolfield on the phone to arrange the
Schoolfield then sent others to deliver the drugs and take Harmon's money. Schoolfield argues first that Harmon's voice
identification failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5). However, all that is required under the Rule
is that the witness have "minimal familiarity" with the speaker's voice; once minimal familiarity is satisfied, it is for the jury to assess any issues regarding the extent of the witness's familiarity with the voice. Cir. 2005). See United States v. Bush, 405 F.3d 909, 919 (10th
Here, Harmon testified that he had known Schoolfield
for several years, through family members and from seeing him around the neighborhood, and had spoken personally with him on at least three or four occasions. This evidence laid the proper
foundation for Harmon's familiarity with Schoolfield's voice, and the admission of his identification testimony was therefore proper. Schoolfield next argues that, because the only evidence against him was Harmon's identification, the evidence was
- 2 -
sufficiency of the evidence, we do not "weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses." United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). We will uphold a jury's verdict
if there is substantial evidence to support it, and will reverse only in those rare cases "where the prosecution's failure is clear." 1997). Here, Harmon identified Schoolfield as the person who brokered the drug sales. In addition, circumstantial evidence The people who conducted the United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.
corroborated Harmon's testimony.
actual drug sales were all individuals with whom Schoolfield was closely associated, including his own mother. Further, phone
records were admitted at trial showing that one of the cell phones used to broker and make the transactions was subscribed in a third party's name at an address where Schoolfield's grandmother and aunt lived and where Schoolfield had been observed on numerous
occasions. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Schoolfield's convictions. See United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d
1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient to sustain a conviction). Accordingly, we affirm Schoolfield's convictions. We
deny Schoolfield's attorney's motion to withdraw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?