Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Michael Terrance Dunn, 41 F.3d 1504, 4th Cir. (1994)
United States v. Michael Terrance Dunn, 41 F.3d 1504, 4th Cir. (1994)
3d 1504
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., District Judge. (CR-9255)
David L. Heilberg, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch,
Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.
W.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Michael Dunn appeals from his conviction for possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841 (West 1981 &
Supp.1994). He argues that the district court erred in permitting expert opinion
Dunn's first argument focuses on the testimony of Detective J.E. Harding of the
Charlottesville, Virginia, Police Department, qualified without objection as an
expert concerning the drug trade. We review the admission of expert opinion
testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582,
589 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S.1994).
This claim is also without merit. The Government obtained the hotel
registration slips the day before the trial began, after learning of their existence
from Winslow that same day, and provided the slips to defense counsel before
trial. Upon receipt thereof, defense counsel had several options, including a
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm Dunn's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Although not contemplated below, we note that the quantity of crack involved
in this case, just over nineteen grams, (J.A. at 59-60), alone would have
supported an inference of an intent to distribute because such a quantity is
inconsistent with what would normally be consumed for personal use. See
United States v. Bell, 954 F.2d 232, 235 (4th Cir.1992) (possession of thirteen
plus grams of crack sufficiently large to support inference of intent to
distribute)
Rule 704(b) refers specifically to expert witnesses "testifying with respect to the
mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case." At least one federal
circuit court has cited that linguistic limitation as the basis for confining Rule
704(b)'s prohibition to "testimony based on a 'psychiatric' or similar 'medical'
analysis of the defendant's mental processes." United States v. Lipscomb, 14
F.3d 1236, 1242 (7th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Richard, 969 F.2d
849, 855 n. 6 (10th Cir.) ("The legislative history [of Rule 704(b) ] suggests