Alphonso N. Owens v. United States
90 A.3d 1118
D.C.2014Background
- Owens was convicted after a jury trial of receiving stolen property and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
- A supplemental jury instruction addressed the defendant's state of mind for the RSP element following a jury note.
- Police stopped a stolen 1996 Nissan Maxima, discovered it had damage and a shaved BMW key, and Owens was the driver.
- Owens stated he was test-driving the car and claimed an acquaintance delivered it and that the damage was due to an accident.
- The RSP statute at the time required showing that the defendant knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen.
- The jury asked whether 'reason to believe' meant a lower certainty or merely reasons the defendant did not register; the court gave a definition based on a reasonable person's beliefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the instruction on 'having reason to believe' properly stated RSP mens rea. | Owens argues the instruction allowed negligence and lowered the government burden. | The government contends the instruction directed to the defendant's actual state of mind and allowed inferences from circumstances. | Instruction was error but not plain error; conviction affirmed. |
| Whether the alleged error affected substantial rights or caused a miscarriage of justice. | Owens claims the error likely affected the verdict by misstating the mental state. | The government argues overwhelming evidence of subjective knowledge supported the verdict regardless. | No plain error affecting substantial rights; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenley & Cleveland Park Emergency Comm. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 550 A.2d 331 (D.C. 1988) (statutory interpretation of enacted language)
- DiGiovanni v. United States, 580 A.2d 123 (D.C. 1990) (subjective mental state for RSP; focus on actual state of mind)
- Charles v. United States, 371 A.2d 404 (D.C. 1977) (government must show guilty knowledge; awareness inferred from facts)
- United States v. Gallo, 543 F.2d 361 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (1973) (inference of knowledge from possession of recently stolen property)
- Yelverton v. United States, 904 A.2d 383 (D.C. 2006) (supplemental instruction in response to jury question; special considerations)
- Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 984 (D.C. 2004) (plain-error standard for instructional error)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework for assessing errors)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (limits of defective burdens and legal standards)