United States v. Boyd, No. 14-2714 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBoyd was convicted of aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine. After one unsuccessful attempt at supervised release, Boyd was again placed on supervised release in January 2014. In May 2014, the government sought to revoke Boyd’s supervised release. Boyd objected to testimony from her new probation officer (Hudson) that was based on the file. Her previous probation officer had retired. Boyd argued “just because the probation officer is not working there does not mean she is not available.” The district court overruled the objections. Jonesboro Police testified about a traffic stop of Boyd’s vehicle based on a tip indicating Boyd was involved with stolen property. During the stop, Boyd admitted that there was stolen property in the vehicle and to knowing additional stolen property was at a local motel. After hearing that testimony, the court determined Boyd’s personal knowledge of the stolen property “would indicate that she was involved with it in some way,” found that Boyd had committed a Grade A violation of supervised release, and sentenced Boyd to 19 months imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that, even under the low preponderance of the evidence standard, there was insufficient evidence to find that Boyd participated in a burglary,
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in permitting defendant's new probation officer to testify concerning defendant's violations when her former probation officer had retired; the government failed to prove that defendant had committed a burglary, a Class A violation, and the case must be remanded for further proceedings; on remand, the record concerning the burglary may not be expanded as the government knew of its obligation to present sufficient evidence of the burglary and failed to do so; the government may expand the record concerning the value of stolen property in defendant's possession as the court prohibited the government from introducing this evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.