USA v. Spayd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JESSICA JOYCE SPAYD,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 29 MOTION
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On 	January 	20, 	2021, 	the 	Government 	filed 	a 	ten-count 	Superseding
Indictment against defendant Jessica Joyce Spayd.1 	On September 26, 2022, a jury trial
was commenced.2 On October 19, 2022, at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief,
Ms. Spayd’s counsel made an oral motion (the “Motion”) challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.3 	The Court
reserved ruling on the Motion pursuant to Rule 29(b).4 	On October 28, 2022, the jury
returned a verdict of Guilty on all Counts in the Superseding Indictment.
1 Docket 87.
2 Docket 246.
3 Docket 293 (Trial Tr. 64:16–20).
4 Id. (Trial Tr. 64:21–25–65:1–3).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 2
Having reserved ruling on the Motion, the Court, considering only the
evidence at the time the ruling was reserved,5 hereby DENIES the Motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 29(a) provides, “[a]fter the
government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the
defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” 	Rule 29(b) states that the Court may
reserve decision on the motion, proceed with trial, submit the case to the jury, and decide
the motion either before or after the jury returns a verdict. “If the court reserves decision,
it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.”6
A Rule 29 motion is reviewed on a “sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.”7
Under this standard, “evidence supports a conviction, if, viewed in the light most favorable
to the government, it would allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”8
II. 	DISCUSSION
Ms. Spayd’s counsel did not specify the grounds for the Rule 29 Motion.9
As such, the Court addresses each Count in the Superseding Indictment below. The Court
5 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b).
6 Id.
7 United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v.
Stoddard, 150 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 1998)).
8 Id. (quoting Stoddard, 150 F.3d at 1144).
9 Ms. Spayd’s counsel did not articulate specific grounds for the Rule 29(a) motion, stating,
“I don’t think the government has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think that
the law requires a verdict of not guilty.” Docket 293 (Trial Tr. 64:18–20). Under Ninth Circuit
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 3
also recites a non-exhaustive description of the evidence that the Government introduced
to prove each Count. The Court finds that the evidence admitted during the Government’s
case-in-chief was sufficient to sustain convictions on Counts 1-10 of the Superseding
Indictment.
1. 	Counts 1-5
Counts 1-5 of the Superseding Indictment charge Ms. Spayd with the
following:
The defendant, JESSICA JOYCE SPAYD, while acting and
intending to act outside the usual course of professional
practice and without a legitimate medical purpose, wrote and
dispensed 	prescriptions 	for 	the 	following 	Schedule 	II
controlled substances: 	substances containing a detectable
amount of methadone; 	substances containing a detectable
amount of fentanyl; substances containing a detectable amount
of oxycodone; 	substances containing a detectable amount of
hydromorphone; and, for the following Schedule IV controlled
substances: 	substances 	containing a detectable amount of
diazepam; and substances containing a detectable amount of
carisoprodol. 	The following deaths resulted from JESSICA
JOYCE SPAYD’s knowing and intentional possession with
intent to distribute, distribution and dispensing, and causing the
intentional distribution and dispensing of the below listed
controlled 	substances, 	with 	each 	of 	the 	below 	deaths
constituting a separate and distinct count of this Indictment
distributing and dispensing controlled substances resulting in
death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).10
To prove these Counts, in addition to other evidence, the Government
presented evidence through the testimony of its expert, Dr. Timothy King. 	For each
law, Rule 29 motions do not need to state the grounds upon which they are based. 	See United
States v. Navarro Viayra, 365 F.3d 790, 793 (9th Cir. 2004).
10 Docket 87 at 2–5.
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 3 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 4
decedent listed in the Superseding Indictment, Dr. King testified that Ms. Spayd was not
practicing medicine when she wrote the decedents the prescriptions described in the
Superseding Indictment, her care of the decedents was outside the usual course of medical
practice and, and represented “extreme departure[s] from the standard of care.”11 	The
Government admitted the decedents’ medical records that were kept by Ms. Spayd, which
demonstrated the “red flags” that each of the decedents presented with, and which
supported the inference that Ms. Spayd was aware of those “red flags” when she was
prescribing the decedents controlled substances.12 The Government also called the medical
examiners that determined the cause and manner of death for each of the decedents.13 Each
of these medical examiners testified that the controlled substances that Ms. Spayd
prescribed, either individually or in combination, could have caused the death of the
decedent.14
The Court determines, at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, when
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the admitted evidence
was sufficient to sustain a conviction on Counts 1-5. Accordingly, Ms. Spayd’s Motion is
DENIED as to Counts 1-5.
2. 	Count 6-9
11 Docket 280 at 45 (Trial Tr. 45:22–25; 78:4–8); Docket 299 (Trial Tr. 19:9–13; 50:20–
23; 299:1–25–300:1–7).
12 See Docket 299 (Trial Tr. 2:10–17).
13 Docket 279 (Trial Tr. 74–192); Docket 288 (Trial Tr. 35–115).
14 Docket 279 (Trial Tr. 74–192); Docket 288 (Trial Tr. 35–115).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 4 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 5
Counts 6-9 of the Superseding Indictment charge Ms. Spayd with the
following:
JESSICA JOYCE SPAYD, while acting and intending to act
outside the usual course of professional practice and without a
legitimate medical purpose, wrote and dispensed prescriptions
for substances containing a detectable amount of oxycodone, a
Schedule 	II 	controlled 	substance, 	with 	each 	of 	the 	. 	. 	.
prescriptions constituting a separate and distinct count of this
indictment . . . [a]ll of which is in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.15
Count 6 refers to a prescription for oxycodone written by Ms. Spayd in the
name of James Eleazar. 	Counts 7-9 refer to prescriptions for oxycodone written by Ms.
Spayd to an undercover agent posing as a patient. To prove Count 6, in addition to other
evidence, the Government called James Eleazar as a witness. Mr. Eleazar testified that he
had no knowledge that Ms. Spayd was writing prescriptions for oxycodone in his name,
and that he was out of the state on many of the instances that Ms. Spayd’s medical records
indicate that he was seen by Ms. Spayd.16 	The Government also admitted Mr. Eleazar’s
medical records that were maintained by Ms. Spayd as well as the data from the Alaska
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (“PDMP”) relating to Mr. Eleazar.17
To prove, Counts 7-9, in addition to other evidence, the Government called
the undercover agent to the stand, who testified about each of the three prescriptions for
oxycodone that Ms. Spayd wrote to him.18 The Government also admitted the videos that
15 Docket 87 at 5–7.
16 Docket 269 (Trial Tr. 51–53, 63–77).
17 Id. (Trial Tr. 2:20–22).
18 Docket 298 (Trial Tr. 117–162).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 5 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 6
the undercover agent took during his appointments with Ms. Spayd as well as copies of the
prescriptions she wrote to him.19
The Court determines, at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, when
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the admitted evidence
was sufficient to sustain a conviction on Counts 6-9. Accordingly, Ms. Spayd’s Motion is
DENIED as to Counts 6-9.
3. 	Count 10
Count 10 of the Superseding Indictment charges Ms. Spayd with the
following:
On a date unknown to the Grand jury, but no later than January
2014, and continuing through in or about October 2019, within
the 	District 	of 	Alaska, 	the 	defendant, 	JESSICA 	JOYCE
SPAYD, 	knowingly 	and 	intentionally 	opened, 	used, 	and
maintained a place known as Eagle River Pain & Wellness,
LLC, located at 16425 Brooks Loop, Eagle River, Alaska, for
the purpose of distributing controlled substances outside the
usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate
medical purpose. All of which is in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
856(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.20
To 	prove 	this 	Count, 	in 	addition 	to 	other 	evidence, 	the 	Government
introduced testimony from members of Ms. Spayd’s office staff, who testified about their
experiences with the patients in Ms. Spayd’s medical practice and that Ms. Spayd had her
staff sign prescriptions for her when she was out of the office.21 	The Government also
called several of Ms. Spayd’s former patients who are not named in the Superseding
19 Id. (Trial Tr. 2:11–17).
20 Docket 87 at 6.
21 Docket 283 (Trial Tr. 59–118); Docket 293 (Trial Tr. 65–96).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 6 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 7
Indictment, including Jason Holmes, Laney McHoul, Mark Ortega, and Tracy Galimba,
who testified about their experiences as patients of Ms. Spayd.22 Several of these patients
testified that there was information in their medical records, particularly regarding physical
examinations, that was not accurate.23 	The medical records of these patients, which
described these physical examinations and included the dosages of their prescriptions, were
admitted into evidence.24 	The Government also introduced the testimony of several
pharmacists from the Anchorage area, who testified that Ms. Spayd’s prescriptions caused
them concern, leading to some pharmacies refusing to fill any prescriptions written by Ms.
Spayd.25
The Court determines, at the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, when
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the admitted evidence
was sufficient to sustain a conviction on Count 10. Accordingly, Ms. Spayd’s Motion is
DENIED as to Count 10.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the evidence presented in the Government’s case-in-
chief was sufficient to sustain a conviction on all Counts in the Superseding Indictment.
Accordingly, Ms. Spayd’s oral Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal is DENIED.
22 Docket 269 (Trial Tr. 134–184); Docket 279 (Trial Tr. 9–30); Docket 283 (Trial Tr.
140–155); Docket 288 (Trial Tr. 182–204).
23 See Docket 269 (Trial Tr. 145:4–25); Docket 279 (Trial Tr. 13–30); Docket 288 (Trial
Tr. 187–192).
24 Docket 269 (Trial Tr. 3:3–4); Docket 279 (Trial Tr. 2:17–19); Docket 283 (Trial Tr.
3:6–7); Docket 288 (Trial Tr. 3: 3–4).
25 See Docket 268 (Trial Tr. 62–108, 156–180); Docket 269 (Trial Tr. 26–45, 111–134,
191–201).
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 7 of 8

United States v. Spayd 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00111-JMK
Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion 	Page 8
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cr-00111-MAH-MMS Document 322 Filed 10/31/22 Page 8 of 8