UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 7/10/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 95-3215
(D.C. No. 94-CR-10052-02)
PERCY L. McCLENDON, (District of Kansas)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BALDOCK, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
In April, 1994, the Wichita Police Department received information from different
sources that marijuana was being sold by a person residing at 1724 S. Battin, in Wichita,
Kansas. The police determined that Timothy Keith Woodard, a Wichita fireman resided
at an apartment at 1724 S. Battin, and a surveillance of the residence was established. On
April 26, 1994, officers observed a red Honda, driven by a person who was later
identified as Percy McClendon, stop at Woodard’s residence. The driver entered
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3
Woodard’s apartment, shortly thereafter departed therefrom and then returned within a
few minutes, entering the residence through a back door. At this point, the police officers
decided to conduct a so-called “knock and talk” approach.
Officers knocked on the front door of 1724 S. Battin and Woodard answered the
knock. The officers identified themselves and advised Woodard that they had received
complaints about possible drug sales from his residence. Woodard assured the officers
that such was not occurring, and further stated that he was a member of the Wichita Fire
Department and had just gotten off work. The officers then asked if they could search the
premises and satisfy themselves that the complaints were unfounded. At this point,
according to the officers, Woodard turned around and walked out of the officers’ sight
toward the bathroom and bedroom area. Woodard soon returned to the officers, who,
again, asked if they could “look around,” to which Woodard replied, “You can come in
and look around. I don’t have anything to hide. I don’t have anything here.”
Upon entering the premises, the officers observed Percy McClendon, who was the
person they had previously seen driving the red Honda and entering Woodard’s
apartment. A search of the premises disclosed a plate in the microwave oven which had
chunks of cocaine base on it totaling 48 grams. Also, 59 grams of marijuana were found
in a Crown Royal bag behind the stove in the kitchen. The marijuana was individually
packaged in 15 small ziploc bags, all contained in one large bag.
The search of Woodard’s residence also revealed a set of digital scales which were
-2-
later determined to have crack cocaine residue on them. Also, two pagers and
approximately $460 were found in the wastebasket in the bathroom of the apartment. A
cellular phone and another pager were found on top of the refrigerator. Other drug
paraphernalia was also found, including hemostats, razor blades, baking soda and ziploc
bags. A loaded Lorcin .25 caliber automatic handgun was discovered in a bedroom
dresser drawer. Finally, a notebook containing names of various individuals with dollar
amounts next to their names was seized.
In his post-arrest statement, McClendon stated to the officer that he had gone to
Woodard’s residence to buy marijuana. At Woodard’s request, McClendon said that he
took the plate with the crack cocaine and the scales with the residue on them from the
bedroom to the kitchen where he put the plate into the microwave oven and placed the
scales underneath the kitchen cabinet. McClendon then said he went to the bathroom
where he put his two pagers and his cash money in a trash bag.
By indictment, Woodard and McClendon were charged with possessing with an
intent to distribute 48 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and with aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. In Count 2
Woodard only was charged with possessing with an intent to distribute 59 grams of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2..
Prior to trial both Woodard and McClendon filed motions to sever their trials.
Both motions were denied. A jury convicted Woodard on both counts and McClendon on
-3-
Count 1. McClendon was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment on Count 1. McClendon
appeals.1 We affirm.
On appeal, McClendon raises two issues: (1) the district court erred in admitting
evidence of prior bad acts on the part of McClendon in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b);
and (2) the district court erred in denying the motion to sever his trial from Woodard’s.
BEL AIRE AFFAIR
The evidence of the prior “bad act” on the part of McClendon was that in January,
1994, some three months prior to McClendon’s arrest on the present charges, McClendon
had been stopped by the police in Bel Aire, Kansas. Jumping ahead, McClendon testified
in his own behalf and in his direct testimony explained the circumstances relating to that
incident. McClendon stated that he and a friend got “pulled over” in Bel Aire, Kansas,
and the police took $126.10 from him. He said there was a “discussion” about a gun in
the car. On further direct questioning by his counsel, McClendon stated that he was a
passenger in the car, and that they had been stopped by the police for speeding. Counsel
asked if McClendon had been “charged with anything out of the incident at Bel Aire”.
McClendon answered that he had been charged with possession of a “little bit” of
marijuana and carrying a concealed weapon and that the charges were still pending.
Woodard filed a separate appeal, our No. 95-3203, and his conviction is affirmed
1
contemporaneously with the filing of the present order and judgment.
-4-
Prior to trial, counsel for McClendon filed a motion wherein she asked for an order
directing the government to disclose “any prior conviction or other similar acts or other
bad acts” on the part of McClendon, which the government intended to introduce into
evidence at trial. By response, the government stated that if it decided to introduce in its
case-in-chief evidence of prior convictions or bad acts committed by McClendon it would
notify counsel of such. At pre-trial, however, the government indicated that it did not
propose to introduce evidence of prior bad acts on the part of McClendon, if such “did
exist.” And, the government at trial did not introduce evidence of prior bad acts by
McClendon.
The first time the term “Bel Aire” was heard by the jury was in cross-examination
of a police officer by Woodard’s counsel. Counsel asked the officer if, at the time of his
arrest, McClendon had asked that the two pagers and $460 found in a wastebasket be
returned to him. The officer testified that McClendon did so ask. The officer testified
that he then told McClendon to have a seat in the living room and he would talk to him
later about the matter. Counsel for Woodard then propounded the following question to
the officer: “And Percy [McClendon] told you that he put them in the trash because he’d
been stopped in Bel Aire before?” Counsel for McClendon objected to that question.
The district court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question.
McClendon’s counsel indicated that such was satisfactory to her.
Woodard testified on his own behalf at trial, and, on direct examination, counsel
-5-
questioned Woodard concerning events occurring in Woodard’s apartment at the time he
and McClendon were arrested. Specifically, in response to a question, Woodard testified
that the officer asked McClendon whether he ever got stopped by a policeman or “did he
have any records or whatever?” Counsel then asked: “What did Percy say?” to which
objection was made. This objection was overruled and Woodard testified that
McClendon told the officer that he “had a marijuana and concealed weapon charge on
him.” That apparently was the extent of Woodard’s testimony on that particular matter.
The next reference to prior bad acts by McClendon occurred during the testimony
of Vanessa Rolfe, one of McClendon’s witnesses. When cross-examined by Woodard’s
counsel, she testified that McClendon had been “stopped before and the police took some
money from him.” Apparently, no objection was made to that particular testimony.
It would appear that the only other time that the jury heard anything about the so-
called Bel Aire Affair was from McClendon himself. As indicated, on direct examination
counsel elicited from McClendon some of the circumstances concerning his “stop” by the
police in Bel Aire. McClendon did state that on that occasion the police took some
money from him and that such was the reason he put the two pagers and $460 in currency
in a trash bag in the bathroom in Woodard’s apartment shortly before he was arrested.
When viewed in context, we hold that any possible error in admitting testimony
concerning the “stop” at Bel Aire three months before McClendon’s arrest in Woodard’s
apartment was, at most, harmless error. In United States v. Sloan, 65 F.d. 861, 865 (10th
-6-
Cir. 1993), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 824 (1996), we said that where evidence of guilt is
overwhelming, any error in mentioning a defendant’s criminal record is harmless error,
citing United States v. Van Scoy, 482 F.2d 347, 349 (10th Cir. 1973).
The government, as promised, did not present any evidence of prior bad acts by
McClendon. Woodard in his direct testimony made very brief reference thereto in
relating what transpired between the officers and McClendon at Woodard’s apartment.
And what detail there was concerning the “stop” in Bel Aire came from McClendon
himself, on direct examination, and was apparently designed to explain why he threw the
two pagers and $460 into a wastebasket in Woodard’s apartment immediately before he
was arrested. In his post-arrest statement McClendon stated that he was in Woodard’s
apartment to make a marijuana purchase and that he, at Woodard’s request, took the plate
with the crack cocaine on it from the bedroom and placed it in the microwave oven. In
his testimony at trial, McClendon admitted that he, at Woodard’s request, carried the plate
on which there was what McClendon believed to be crack cocaine from the bedroom into
the kitchen and that when he couldn’t open the door to the microwave oven, Woodard
“popped” the door and put the plate in the oven. It should be remembered that both
Woodard and McClendon were charged with aiding and abetting the other. Certainly in
trying to hide the cocaine in the microwave oven, McClendon, by his own testimony, was
aiding and abetting. And, on appeal, McClendon does not challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain his conviction.
-7-
MOTION TO SEVER
McClendon also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever
his trial from Woodard’s. The denial of a motion to sever is reviewed by us for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Wacker, 72 F.d. 1453 (10th Cir. 1995). In Wacker we said
that a defendant in seeking a severance “bears the heavy burden of demonstrating
prejudice to his case.” Id. at 1468 (internal quotes omitted). Our study of the record
leads us to conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the instant case.
It would appear that in the district court the motion to sever was based primarily
on United States v. Bruton, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that
the admission into evidence of a co-defendant’s statement inculpating a defendant
violates that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the defendant
elects not to testify. Id. at 137. However, in the instant case, although the district court
denied the motion to sever, it also ordered that Woodard’s and McClendon’s post-arrest
statements be redacted so as to eliminate any reference by one concerning the other.
Apparently this order was followed, thus avoiding any Bruton problem. 2 See United
States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510, 1513 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 114 S. Ct. 230
(1993) (no violation of Bruton where the district court redacted the co-defendant’s post-
arrest statement and eliminated not only the defendant’s name but any reference to his
2
Moreover, in this case, both defendants testified, thereby eliminating the
potential prejudice to each defendant that was the Bruton court’s major concern. .
-8-
existence).
In this Court, counsel emphasizes Bruton less and instead relies primarily on the
fact that, at trial, McClendon’s defense was at odds with that of Woodard; i.e. each was
“finger pointing” at the other. In this connection, we note that both McClendon and
Woodard testified at trial, and each was cross-examined not only by government counsel,
but also by counsel representing the other defendant.
In United States v. Linn, 31 F.3d 987, 992 (10th Cir. 1994), we rejected a so-called
claim of “mutually antagonistic” defenses as a ground for a severance. In so doing, we
spoke as follows:
Here, the mutual antagonism complained of by
defendants amounts to no more than finger pointing. The
Sturlins maintained that they had nothing to do with the fire at
all and that Mr. Linn and others committed the arson as part
of a scheme to coerce Guy Sturlin to invest money. Likewise,
Mr. Linn contended that he had nothing to do with the fire
and that the Sturlins and Mr. Kerns committed the arson. Of
course, Defendants also posited that each had nothing to do
with the fire and that it was either accidental or due to an
unknown arsonist. These defenses simply are not so
contradictory that the jury must have necessarily disbelieved
one to believe another. The jury could have believed all of
Defendants’ theories and acquitted all of them, but,
unfortunately for Defendants, did not.
So, in the instant case, there was some “finger pointing,” Woodard testifying that
the crack cocaine was not his, and McClendon testifying that the crack cocaine did not
belong to him. However, such, under Linn, supra, does not require a severance. The
district court did not abuse its discretion.
-9-
Judgment affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. McWilliams
Senior Circuit Judge
- 10 -