United States v. Donald Stewart ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-1238
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Donald Stewart
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: September 19, 2019
    Filed: September 27, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    A superseding indictment charged Donald Stewart with conspiracy to distribute
    and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin, and with three counts of
    using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime resulting in the death of
    three persons. The evidence at trial showed that Stewart was part of an extensive
    conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine and acted as “enforcer” or “shooter” for
    Donald White, leader of the drug trafficking organization. After a nine-day trial, the
    jury found Stewart guilty of the drug conspiracy count and two counts of using a
    firearm resulting in death. On appeal, Stewart argues the district court1 erred in
    admitting the government’s evidence of five other shootings: an undated attempted
    shooting of an individual named “Tez”; a November 2008 shooting at a residence
    occupied by DelMarco Gilyard; the May 2009 shooting of Stephon Johnson; the
    March 2010 assault of Stewart’s brother, Ricky Stewart; and the April 2010 shooting
    of Damon Walker. Concluding the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. See
    United States v. Emmert, 
    825 F.3d 906
    , 909 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review).
    The district court admitted evidence concerning the first four shootings as
    intrinsic to the charged offenses. We agree. “When evidence of other crimes tends
    logically to prove any element of the crime charged it is admissible as an integral part
    of the immediate context of the crime charged and is not extrinsic.” United States v.
    Battle, 
    774 F.3d 504
    , 511 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). The evidence showed
    that Stewart participated in the “Tez” shooting, the Gilyard residence shooting, and
    the Johnson shooting at the behest of the White organization as it feuded with a rival
    drug trafficking organization. This evidence was relevant to all the charges, as it
    tended to prove the existence of the drug conspiracy and Stewart’s role as an enforcer
    who used firearms to further its drug trafficking. The evidence that Stewart accused
    his brother of stealing drugs and shot at him at Stewart’s residence, a residence that
    featured prominently in the drug trafficking and where firearms and ammunition were
    later found, was evidence tending to show that Stewart possessed drugs and used
    firearms to protect drugs that were part of the charged conspiracy. See United States
    v. Buckner, 
    868 F.3d 684
    , 688 (8th Cir. 2017); United States v. Maxwell, 
    643 F.3d 1096
    , 1100 (8th Cir. 2011).
    1
    The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    -2-
    Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
    admitting evidence of the Walker shooting under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to
    show Stewart’s intent and knowledge in the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid.
    404(b). While not carried out in furtherance of the conspiracy, this shooting tended
    to show that Stewart was aware of the violent behavior of his co-conspirators and
    intended to join in their conduct. Its prejudicial effect was mitigated by the district
    court’s limiting instruction. See United States v. Rembert, 
    851 F.3d 836
    , 839 (8th
    Cir. 2017); 
    Buckner, 868 F.3d at 690
    . Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1238

Filed Date: 9/27/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/27/2019