United States v. Otis Furman Crabbe

── United States v. Otis Furman Crabbe ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11568 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 of 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11568 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OTIS FURMAN CRABBE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cr-14037-DMM-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Otis Crabbe appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to USCA11 Case: 25-11568 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2 of 16 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11568 suppress his stationhouse interrogation; (2) the district court abused its discretion by allowing the government to present expert testimony; (3) the district court clearly erred in denying his chal- lenge to the government’s peremptory strike of a Black venireman; and (4) the district court abused its discretion in declining to pro- vide a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple pos- session. After thorough review, we affirm. I. We review the denial of a motion to suppress as a mixed question of law and fact, with conclusions of law reviewed de novo and findings of fact reviewed for clear error. United States v. Thomas, 160 F.4th 1177, 1181 (11th Cir. 2025). Facts are construed in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the district court. Id. “When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, [we are] not restricted to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and instead consider[] the whole record.” United States v. Epps, 613 F.3d 1093, 1097 (11th Cir. 2010). We review de novo whether a statement was voluntary, giving deference to the district court’s factual findings. United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2010). The government must establish voluntariness of a chal- lenged confession by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We generally review discovery violations under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hastamorir, 881 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir. 1989). A district court’s decision on whether to give a lesser-included offense instruction also is re- viewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gutierrez, 745 F.3d USCA11 Case: 25-11568 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3 of 16 25-11568 Opinion of the Court 3 463, 470 (11th Cir. 2014). The court abuses its discretion in declin- ing to give an instruction on a lesser-included offense when “the evidence would permit a rational jury to find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and not the greater.” Id. (citation modified). When we review the district court’s ruling on a challenge made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the district