## Facts

- Oklahoma City police investigated Steve Daniels as a suspected drug dealer.
- Barbara Lynn Baggett made several calls to Daniels in late November 1987; three calls on November 29 were recorded.
- In the recorded calls, Baggett discussed obtaining cocaine and heroin and arranged to meet Daniels at a particular time and place.
- Surveillance officers twice observed Daniels meet a white female driving a car registered to Baggett at the agreed location; officers did not see drugs or money exchanged.
- Baggett was later arrested at her home; no heroin was found on her.
- Months later, Baggett made statements indicating she had used heroin around the time of the events, but she did not admit possessing heroin on November 29.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Baggett possessed heroin on November 29, 1987, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
2. Whether 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) applies when an individual uses a telephone solely to arrange a drug purchase for personal use, rather than to assist distribution.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed Baggett’s conviction for simple possession under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) for insufficient evidence.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed Baggett’s three convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), holding the statute does not reach telephone calls made solely to arrange personal-use purchases.
- The court reversed all convictions.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, an appellate court considers all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government and asks whether any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not reweigh witness credibility.
- A possession conviction cannot rest on speculation; recorded negotiations and observed meetings, without evidence of an exchange or recovered drugs tied to the charged date, may be inadequate to prove actual possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Section 843(b) criminalizes using a communication facility to commit, cause, or facilitate a felony drug offense; a buyer-user’s calls that merely arrange a personal-use purchase do not “facilitate” the seller’s felony distribution within the statute’s intended scope.
- Interpreting § 843(b) to cover every personal-use purchase arranged by phone would effectively convert simple possession conduct into felony exposure based solely on the communication method, contrary to the statutory structure distinguishing possession from distribution crimes.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that the government’s proof did not establish Baggett’s actual possession of heroin on the charged date and that § 843(b) does not apply to telephone calls used only to arrange drug purchases for personal consumption, requiring reversal of all counts.


United States v. Baggett, 890 F.2d 1095 (10th Cir. 1989)