## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Terry Jon Martin and John David Emerson for offenses tied to the burglary of drug stores in New Hope and Frazee, Minnesota; because the stores dispensed controlled substances, the burglary charge was brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2118(b).
- The government’s proof of the New Hope burglary (May 16, 1987) relied heavily on testimony from Fred King, a police informant, who identified Martin and Emerson as the burglars and described the theft of controlled substances (including codeine and Ritalin).
- King’s account was corroborated by a drug-store employee who testified that Martin and Emerson were seen “casing” the store the day before the burglary.
- Several days later (around 1:00 a.m. on May 20, 1987), the Frazee police chief stopped a car after observing the driver leave the vehicle, walk to the front door of a drug store, and appear to check the lock; Martin was later identified as the driver and Emerson as a passenger.
- During that stop, the chief observed Martin wearing a “booster coat” (a coat with hidden compartments commonly used to conceal stolen goods) and, after Martin consented to a trunk search, saw items described as burglary tools (including a railroad bar, pry pliers, drills, and other tools). The chief also observed a buck knife and large screwdriver in the passenger area.
- The chief released the men, but later learned information suggesting the car’s registration was improper and attempted unsuccessfully to stop the car again.
- On May 22, 1987, a Hennepin County detective applied for and obtained a search warrant for Martin and his car, relying on information that included the Frazee stop, a recent reported theft attempt by a man wearing a booster coat and driving a car linked to Martin, and Martin’s criminal record.
- The warrant authorized a search for burglary tools, the booster coat, and items showing constructive possession of the vehicle; executing officers seized, among other things, the booster coat, numerous tools, pills, and a lock pick from the car.
- On May 28, 1987, the detective obtained a warrant to search Emerson’s home; officers seized additional evidence.
- A jury convicted both Martin and Emerson of conspiracy, burglary of a federally registered pharmacy, and possession with intent to distribute Ritalin.
- On appeal, Martin primarily challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his automobile; Emerson raised multiple claims of error, including that the pharmacy was not a “person” under § 2118(b), that evidence from his home should have been suppressed, and that various trial rulings required reversal.

## Issues

1. Whether the search warrant for Martin’s automobile was supported by probable cause such that the district court properly denied Martin’s motion to suppress.
2. Whether a drug store/pharmacy that dispenses controlled substances can qualify as a “person” registered under 18 U.S.C. § 2118(b), defeating Emerson’s motion for acquittal on the pharmacy-burglary-related counts.
3. Whether the warrant to search Emerson’s home was valid and supported by probable cause, such that the district court properly denied Emerson’s suppression motion.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to cross-examine Emerson’s wife about Emerson’s prior criminal record.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Emerson’s motion for severance.
6. Whether the district court erred by admitting alleged co-conspirator statements as nonhearsay.
7. Whether the district court erred by refusing Emerson’s requested jury instruction focused on the informant’s drug addiction.
8. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Emerson’s convictions.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction for both Martin and Emerson.
- The court held the warrant to search Martin’s automobile was supported by probable cause, so the district court properly denied suppression of the items seized from the car.
- The court rejected Emerson’s statutory argument and held that the pharmacy qualified as a “person” for purposes of § 2118(b).
- The court upheld the search of Emerson’s home, concluding the warrant was valid and suppression was properly denied.
- The court found no reversible error in permitting cross-examination of Emerson’s wife about Emerson’s prior record.
- The court upheld the denial of severance, finding no showing of the level of prejudice required to require separate trials.
- The court found no error in admitting co-conspirator statements and no error in refusing the requested special instruction on the informant’s addiction given the instructions as a whole.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court held the record was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find Emerson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A search warrant satisfies the Fourth Amendment if, under the totality of the circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause; reviewing courts give deference to that determination.
- In construing federal criminal statutes, courts read statutory terms in context and avoid interpretations that defeat the statute’s evident purpose; “person” may refer to a business entity where the statutory scheme shows Congress meant to protect registered pharmacies and similar registrants.
- Trial-court evidentiary rulings, including the scope of cross-examination, are reviewed for abuse of discretion and warrant reversal only when the ruling results in unfair prejudice that affects substantial rights.
- Defendants jointly indicted, particularly in conspiracy-related prosecutions, may be tried together; severance is discretionary and requires a showing of real prejudice, not merely a better chance of acquittal in a separate trial.
- Statements by a co-conspirator may be admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) when the government shows the existence of a conspiracy and that the statement was made during and in furtherance of it.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole; a court need not give a requested instruction if the charge adequately covers witness credibility and the jury’s role in evaluating testimony.
- Evidence is sufficient if, taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in the government’s favor, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; appellate courts do not reweigh credibility.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Martin’s and Emerson’s convictions for conspiracy, burglary of a federally registered pharmacy, and possession with intent to distribute Ritalin, holding that the warrants for Martin’s car and Emerson’s home were supported by probable cause, § 2118(b) applied to the pharmacy as a registered “person,” and the challenged trial rulings (cross-examination, joinder, co-conspirator statements, and jury instructions) did not amount to reversible error; the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts.


United States v. Martin, 866 F. 2d 972 (1989)