Khriy Sherrod Simon was convicted by a jury of detaining and searching the person and property of two women while impersonating a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The incident occurred in March 2023 at a PetSmart in Greensboro, North Carolina, where Simon, wearing a mask and bulletproof vest, blocked a vehicle, ordered the occupants to exit, and searched the car. Simon claimed at trial that he was acting as an informant for a bail bondsman and identified himself as a 'BEA' or bail enforcement agent, not a DEA agent. He was sentenced to 33 months in prison and appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the impersonation charge and the district court's exclusion of out-of-court statements regarding his instructions from the bondsman.
The court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence first, applying de novo review and assuming the jury resolved all credibility disputes in the government's favor. The central dispute was whether Simon announced himself as 'DEA' or 'BEA.' While Simon testified he said 'BEA,' the victims testified he said 'DEA,' and the court held the jury was entitled to credit the victims. Beyond the verbal claim, the court found Simon's attire, demeanor, and behavior consistent with a law enforcement officer. Crucially, Simon told the victims they matched descriptions of individuals involved in drug and homicide cases, which aligns with federal jurisdiction and the DEA's role, rather than a bail bondsman's typical focus on failure to appear. The court concluded that combining the direct evidence of the 'DEA' claim with his conduct provided substantial evidence that he impersonated a federal agent. Regarding the evidentiary challenge, the court reviewed the exclusion of hearsay for abuse of discretion. Even assuming the exclusion was error, the court applied the harmless error standard from United States v. Gallagher. The court found the error harmless because the case was not close; the victims' testimony corroborated that Simon had a 'boss' and that his actions went beyond typical bail enforcement duties. Furthermore, the bondsman, Remus Brown, testified at trial that he employed Simon, mitigating the need for the excluded testimony to prove Simon's employment status.
Simon's 33-month prison sentence remains in effect. The decision reinforces that impersonating a federal agent under 18 U.S.C. § 913 can be proven through a combination of verbal claims and contextual behavior, such as referencing federal crimes, even if the defendant claims a different law enforcement role. The ruling also clarifies that the exclusion of hearsay regarding a defendant's employment is often harmless when other evidence corroborates the employment and the impersonation charge is supported by independent evidence of federal authority.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download