United States v. Tenerelli

614 F.3d 764 (6th Cir. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Wood, a narcotics investigator, used an informant (CRI) to arrange a methamphetamine purchase from D. D Wood observed the CRI dial D's phone number and listened to the CRI's request to purchase methamphetamine, but could not hear the other side of the conversation. Wood drove the CRI to a local home improvement store, searched the CRI for contraband and money, gave the CRI money to use for the methamphetamine purchase, and dropped the CRI off in front of the store. Officers stationed at D's residence observed him get into his car and drive to the same store. The officers saw D enter the store with the CRI and observed them exiting together approximately five to six minutes later. There was no visual or audio surveillance while they were in the store. The CRI returned with one-quarter ounce of methamphetamine. Wood sought a search warrant for D's residence. D was arrested and indicted for drug and weapon possession crimes. At trial, Wood and two other officers testified about the controlled buy and about the evidence seized from D's residence. The court allowed Wood to make certain statements about the controlled drug buy. D claims that Wood's statements describing what he observed when the CRI dialed D's telephone number and ordered methamphetamine from the person who answered are inadmissible hearsay. The government countered that Wood's statements were not offered for the truth, but were instead just describing verbal acts that he witnessed. The court allowed them. The jury also heard a cooperating witness testify that he purchased methamphetamine from D at both D's residence and D's parents' home and that he had seen D possess a 9mm firearm. Text messages corroborated the testimony by reflecting D's efforts to collect a drug debt from the cooperating witness. D was convicted of all charges.