United States v. Christopher Don Chitwood

Citations: 52 F.3d 338; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18238; 1995 WL 216900Docket: 94-6142

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; April 12, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached or shared with the court and parties, following the General Order of November 29, 1993. In the case of United States v. Christopher Don Chitwood, No. 94-6142, the Tenth Circuit reviewed Chitwood's direct appeal of his conviction for three counts of distribution and one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. The appellate panel determined that oral argument was unnecessary. Chitwood's appeal contended that the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible evidence, failing to sever his trial from co-defendants, and not granting his motions for a Bill of Particulars or Motion to Dismiss. 

The background includes Chitwood's indictment alongside 14 defendants in a drug conspiracy related to Samuel Norwood, a known drug dealer. Key evidence against Chitwood included testimony from a co-defendant and video recordings of him selling crack cocaine. After conviction, Chitwood was sentenced to 292 months for conspiracy and 240 months for drug counts. 

Regarding the admissibility of evidence, Chitwood claimed the trial court erred by allowing testimony linking prostitution and drug customers of Norwood's organization. He sought to limit this evidence through a motion in limine, but the government argued that his failure to object during the trial warranted a review only for plain error. The court noted that a motion in limine can preserve an objection if the issue was adequately presented, could be resolved pretrial, and was clearly ruled upon by the trial judge. The court chose to assume that Chitwood met these criteria and reviewed the admissibility for an abuse of discretion.

Evidence related to a prostitution ring was admissible in Chitwood's trial as it was relevant for convicting a co-defendant, not directly against him, and thus not excludable under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The court ruled that any potential prejudice to Chitwood was mitigated by substantial direct evidence against him and proper jury instructions to consider each defendant separately. Chitwood's request to sever his trial from his co-defendants was denied, as he failed to show that the joint trial significantly affected the jury's verdict. The court emphasized that joint trials are generally favored for efficiency and consistency, and Chitwood did not demonstrate the complexity or antagonism necessary to warrant severance. Regarding his Motion for a Bill of Particulars, the court found no abuse of discretion. Chitwood's claim that the indictment lacked specific dates was dismissed since the January 4, 1994 indictment provided adequate notice of the charges, including specifics on the possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy counts. Chitwood's objections concerning the generality of dates related to other defendants were deemed irrelevant as he lacked standing to raise those issues.

The indictment against Chitwood provided adequate notice regarding the charges, justifying the district court's discretion to deny a Bill of Particulars. Chitwood's conviction is affirmed, and a mandate will be issued promptly. The order and judgment are not binding precedent, except for the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court typically disapproves of citing such orders but allows citation under specific conditions outlined in a General Order from November 29, 1993. Additionally, the court dismisses the government's argument that a failure to object to evidence admission constituted a waiver, noting that relevant cases do not apply as Chitwood had previously filed a motion in limine. While Chitwood referenced a motion to limit certain evidence, he did not adequately clarify whether the evidence was admitted at trial or articulate why its admission constituted an error, leading the court to disregard this evidentiary issue.