## Facts

- During a 2007 narcotics investigation in the Des Moines, Iowa area, officers observed Ronald Andrew Buchanan repeatedly visiting two residences and using multiple vehicles.
- Officers suspected one residence functioned as a stash house for drugs, money, and firearms.
- On November 2, 2007, officers executed search warrants on both residences, a vehicle driven by Buchanan, and Buchanan’s person.
- After officers stopped Buchanan, they advised him of his Miranda rights and searched him, finding a key stamped with the number “2010.”
- In a closet at one residence, officers found a safe containing cocaine base, powder cocaine, and drug-related items.
- Officers testified that the safe bore an internal numeric inscription “2010,” and the government introduced a safe instruction manual indicating a “2010” model.
- The government did not seize or introduce the safe itself at trial; it relied on testimony describing the markings and the manual.
- A jury convicted Buchanan of two drug counts (possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine) and acquitted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court imposed a 300-month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether testimony describing the “2010” inscription on the safe, without producing the safe, violated the best evidence rule.
2. Whether manufacturer markings on the key and safe, and testimony about them, constituted inadmissible hearsay.
3. Whether admission of a latent fingerprint examiner’s testimony violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G) due to inadequate expert disclosure.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the drug convictions.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence.
- The court held manufacturer markings on the key and safe were not hearsay because they were not treated as assertions offered for their truth.
- The court held the best evidence rule did not require production of the safe merely because it bore identifying numbers; testimony and the manual were admissible to show the linkage.
- The court concluded any Rule 16(a)(1)(G) problem concerning fingerprint expert disclosure did not warrant reversal because Buchanan failed to show prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational jury to find possession and intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Manufacturer stamps, labels, and similar identifying markings on physical objects are generally non-hearsay when used circumstantially as identifiers rather than as assertions offered for the truth of a proposition.
- The best evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002) primarily applies when proving the contents of a writing where the precise contents are at issue; it does not automatically require production of a physical object simply because it bears letters or numbers.
- Alleged Rule 16(a)(1)(G) expert-disclosure errors are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reversal requires a showing of prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence may suffice.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Buchanan’s drug convictions, concluding that testimony describing a matching “2010” marking on a key and safe was admissible because the markings were non-hearsay identifiers and did not trigger a strict best-evidence requirement to produce the safe, that any expert-disclosure deficiency caused no prejudicial harm, and that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.


United States v. Buchanan, 604 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2010)