United States v. Michael Allen Masters and Donna Louise Bull Edwards

Appellants were convicted of aiding and abetting a marijuana smuggling scheme. The evidence was clearly sufficient. We affirm. Appellants make numerous assignments of error. Only four warrant discussion.

The questions on voir dire were appropriate. The scope of the questioning was within the sound discretion of the trial judge, which was not abused.

In her opening statement, the United States Attorney referred to a smuggling plan which had been used on a prior occasion. Appellants argue that the statement was improper because no continuing plan of criminal conduct was ever proved. The evidence indicates that, a few days before the appellants were apprehended in the act of aiding and abetting the smuggling attempt, Edwards and four others had engaged in a rehearsal or “dry run.” The evidence also indicates that the earlier attempt would not have been “dry” if the expected contact had been made on that occasion with a marijuana dealer in Mexico. We find no error.

The trial judge allowed the prosecutor to ask appellants about prior familiarity with marijuana. Edwards was asked whether she had ever seen marijuana at the home of the principals. She answered that she had once…