Background
Malik Javier McKenzie was convicted of possession with intent to distribute various controlled substances, possession of a machinegun, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The charges stemmed from a traffic stop initiated after Officer Josh Myers observed McKenzie’s vehicle run a stop sign. During the subsequent chase and apprehension, drugs and a firearm were found on McKenzie. He also pled guilty to obstructing justice for attempting to bribe a juror during his trial. McKenzie appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, the admission of prior bad acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress de novo regarding the law and for clear error regarding facts, finding the officer’s testimony credible and sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for the stop. Regarding Rule four zero four B evidence, the court applied a three-part test, finding the evidence of prior drug sales relevant to intent, sufficiently proven by a plea agreement, and not unfairly prejudicial given the limiting instruction. The court also found no error in the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal or the sentencing enhancements.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the standard for reasonable suspicion based on credible officer testimony regarding traffic violations and confirms the admissibility of prior drug sales evidence to prove intent in trafficking cases.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download