United States v. Derrick Deon Horton, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, United States of Am. v. Derrick Deon Horton, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, 873 F.2d 180 (8th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Derrick Deon Horton, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, United States of Am. v. Derrick Deon Horton, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, 873 F.2d 180 (8th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“evidence of false identification is relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt.”
45 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Robert Holman (ca8, 1999-12-08) · Strongest negative: United States v. Angel Reyes, A/K/A Jose Konig Mangele, Etc. (ca8, 1990-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Angel Reyes, A/K/A Jose Konig Mangele, Etc. (2×)
8th Cir. · 1990 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 & n. 2 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (defendant charged with drug violations; false identification answer during pretrial booking held admissible; defendant did not raise Miranda objection).
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Robert Holman
8th Cir. · 1999 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
evidence of false identification is relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Evans
Ohio Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id. at ¶ 33, quoting Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting United State v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, fn.2 (8th Cir.1989). {¶ 20} Here we conclude that Raiff’s question “I asked him what his charges were,” -12- (Suppression Tr. at 67), qualified as a routine booking question.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hale
Ohio · 2008 · confidence medium
The personal-history questions were routine booking questions, and the requirement that police administer Miranda warnings before questioning a suspect in custody does not apply to routine booking questions. {¶ 33} Routine booking questions are questions asked in order “to secure the ‘biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.’ ” Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990), 496 U.S. 582, 601 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 , quoting United States v. Horton (C.A.8, 1989), 873 F.2d 180, 181, fn. 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Harms
Idaho Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Pennsylvania v. Muniz 496 U.S. 582, 601 , 110 S.Ct. 2638, 2650 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528, 552 (1990) (suspect questioned regarding his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth and current age); United States v. Sweeting, 933 F.2d 962, 965 (11th Cir.1991) (suspect questioned regarding his address); United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181 (8th Cir.1989) (suspect questioned regarding his name); United States v. Gotchis, 803 F.2d 74, 79 (2nd Cir.1986) (suspect questioned regarding his employment); United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375, 378 (11th Cir.1983) (suspect questioned regarding …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert A. Holman, Also Known as Birna Shaw
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See United States v. James, 172 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review of denial of motion for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of evidence); United States v. Barnes, 140 F.3d 737, 738 (8th Cir.1998) (“Evidence of flight or escape is admissible and has probative value as evidence of consciousness of guilt.”); United States v. Johnson, 18 F.3d 641, 644, 647-48 (8th Cir.1994) (positioning of gun less than two feet from defendant, with butt of gun facing him, would permit reasonable fact finder to infer knowledge and control of gun); United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Santos Acevedo
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 11 F.3d 346, 353 (2nd Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2142 , 128 L.Ed.2d 870 (1994); United States v. Wint, 974 F.2d 961, 967 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1001 , 122 L.Ed.2d 151 (1993); United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181 (8th Cir.1989); United States v. Kloock, 652 F.2d 492, 494-95 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981); cf. United States v. Silverman, 771 F.2d 1193, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.1985), withdrawn, 796 F.2d 339 (9th Cir.1986), and superseded on other grounds, 861 F.2d 571 (9th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William J. Jordan, United States of America v. William J. Jordan
4th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Similarly, the district court properly admitted the documents showing false identification because proof of carrying false identification following the commission of a crime is germane to consciousness of guilt, see United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam). 7 The district court repeatedly took precautionary measures that sufficiently overcame any prejudice that may have existed, see United States v. Greenwood, 796 F.2d 49, 53 (4th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pennsylvania v. Muniz (2×)
SCOTUS · 1990 · confidence medium
We agree with amicus United States, however, that Muniz's answers to these first seven questions are nonetheless admissible because the questions fall within a "routine booking question" exception which exempts from Miranda 's coverage questions to secure the " `biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.' " Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F. 2d 180, 181, n. 2 (CA8 1989).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Velliquette
Ohio Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 , 2008-Ohio-3426 , 892 N.E.2d 864, ¶ 32-33 , citing Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, fn. 2 (8th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. United States
D.C. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 600 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 n. 2 (1989)).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sallis
Iowa · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Muniz, 496 U.S. at 601 , 110 S.Ct. at 2650 , 110 L.Ed.2d at 552 ; Van Hoff v. State, 447 N.W.2d 665, 672 (Iowa App.1989) (finding custodial interrogation does not include basic identification questioning); see United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1989) (listing cases recognizing routine booking exception).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Kevin Bishop, United States of America v. Edward Stokes (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 n. 2 (8th Cir.1989) (listing cases from First, Second, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits recognizing "routine booking exception").
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bishop
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (listing cases from First, Second, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits recognizing "routine booking exception").
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jack Dean Reeves
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) ("[e]vidence of false identification is relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt"; balancing of probative value of such evidence against prejudicial effect is committed to district court's discretion). 5 The Anders brief also argues that the district court improperly denied Reeves's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Stevens (2×)
Wis. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n.2 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375, 378-79 (11th Cir. 1983); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Joseph Johnson
4th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Questions regarding such basic matters as height, weight, age, residence, and other matters do not constitute "custodial interrogation." Id.; see also United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180 , 181 n. 2 (8th Cir.1989). 21 The statements in question here fall within the exception for routine booking questions.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Derrick Deon HORTON, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Derrick Deon HORTON, A/K/A Thomas Deon Hill, Appellee
88-5228, 88-5266.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 18, 1989.
873 F.2d 180
Andi S. Lipman, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant., Thorwald H. Anderson, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Wollman, Magill, Larson.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Derrick Deon Horton appeals his convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S. C. § 841(a)(1), and of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Horton contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions, and (2) his fifth amendment rights to due process of law and a fair trial were violated by the admission of a statement he made during the booking procedure. The government appeals the district court’s holding that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is unconstitutional. We affirm and, in[*181] light of Mistretta v. United States, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989), remand for resentencing under the sentencing guidelines.

In late November of 1987, the Minneapolis Police Department conducted three searches of suspected cocaine-related residences. On November 20, the police searched an apartment on Nicollet Avenue. As the police officers entered through the front door, Horton and another man ran from the apartment through the back door. Both men were apprehended and arrested. A search of Horton produced a gun and $1,285 in United States currency, folded in $100 bundles. Inside the apartment the police found crack, a microwave, bindles, [1] and a scale. The government produced evidence that the apartment was used as a crack house, where cocaine was cooked and sold as crack.

Later on November 20 the police executed a search at a house on Columbus Avenue. There, they arrested George Williams, known as G-Man, and James Hood, known as Fred, and found a quantity of cocaine in the garbage.

On November 25, the police conducted a search at an apartment on Clinton Avenue South. Inside the apartment were Horton, Hood, Lisa Niederloh, and Kim Thomas. A search of the apartment produced a pair of trousers with a bag of cocaine in the pocket, two pagers, a billfold belonging to John Ray Wardlow, and a silver bag in Nieder-loh’s closet containing cocaine and $1,913 in currency, folded in $100 bundles. The government produced evidence showing that the apartment was rented by Hood, Williams, and Wardlow to provide a place for them to sleep away from the crack houses “in case they were busted.” The apartment had also been used to cook cocaine and sell crack.

A jury found Horton guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. The district court held the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to be unconstitutional and sentenced Horton as if his crimes had been committed prior to November 1, 1987, and imposed five years’ imprisonment.

Horton first contends that the government produced insufficient evidence to sustain the possession with intent to distribute and the conspiracy convictions. We disagree. The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Wajda, 810 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1040, 107 S.Ct. 1981, 95 L.Ed.2d 821 (1987); United States v. Randle, 815 F.2d 505 (8th Cir.1987).

Horton’s second contention is that the district court erred in allowing the government to present in its case-in-chief evidence that Horton had falsely stated his name as Thomas Deon Hill during a pretrial booking interview. Horton claims that the use of this evidence violated his fifth amendment rights to due process and a fair trial because it was irrelevant and was more prejudicial than probative. [2] See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403.

Evidence of false identification is relevant and admissible to show consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Eggleton, 799 F.2d 378, 381 (8th Cir.1986). The balancing of the probative value of such evi[*182] dence against its prejudicial effect is committed to the district court’s discretion. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the false identity testimony.

We affirm the judgment of conviction and remand for resentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission.

1

. "bindle * * * 2. slang: a small package, envelope, or paper containing a narcotic (as morphine, heroin, or cocaine) * * *." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 217 (1981). Bindle has also been defined as "[a] small quantity of narcotics denoted as a "retail” unit.” Lane v. United States, 321 F.2d 573, 574 (5th Cir.1963), ce rt. denied, 377 U.S. 936, 84 S.Ct. 1340, 12 L.Ed.2d 299 (1964).

2

. Horton raises no objection under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is well established that Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. See United States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1034, 104 S.Ct. 1304, 79 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d 404 (1st Cir.1981); United States v. Prewitt, 553 F.2d 1082 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 840, 98 S.Ct. 135, 54 L.Ed.2d 104 (1977); United States ex rel. Hines v. La Vallee, 521 F.2d 1109 (2d Cir.1975), ce rt. denied, 423 U.S. 1090, 96 S.Ct. 884, 47 L.Ed.2d 101 (1976); United States v. Menichino, 497 F.2d 935 (5th Cir.1974).