Filed: Jun. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40378 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KRISEAN JERMAINE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-99-CR-3-1 - June 22, 2001 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Krisean Jermaine Johnson appeals his conviction for possession of five grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. He asse
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40378 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KRISEAN JERMAINE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-99-CR-3-1 - June 22, 2001 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Krisean Jermaine Johnson appeals his conviction for possession of five grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. He asser..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40378
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KRISEAN JERMAINE JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-99-CR-3-1
--------------------
June 22, 2001
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Krisean Jermaine Johnson appeals his conviction for possession
of five grams or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. He
asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction. We hold that the evidence was sufficient for a
rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Bell,
678
F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)(en banc), aff’d,
462 U.S. 356
(1983). Witness Mark Miller’s testimony was not incredible as a
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
matter of law. See United States v. Freeman,
77 F.3d 812, 816 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Johnson also asserts that he was absent from the courtroom
when the court excused the jury for the evening during
deliberations and when the court addressed a question sent out by
the jury. He maintains that these absences violated the
Constitution and FED. R. CIV. P. 43. A defendant does not have a
constitutional right to be present for every interaction before the
jury. United States v. Gagnon,
470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985). Johnson
has failed to show that either of these absences resulted in a
finding that the trial was unfair. See Kentucky v. Stincer,
482
U.S. 730, 745 (1987). He has also failed to show that these
absences during a “stage of the trial,” which would violate Rule
43, rose above the harmless-error standard. See United States v.
Allen,
76 F.3d 1348, 1371 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Brooks,
786 F.2d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 1986). Consequently, Johnson’s
conviction is AFFIRMED.
2