Hammond v. United States, 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 438

Background

Hammond was stopped in his mother’s car; officers found a .22 and a .270 rifle in the trunk; Hammond reacted by admitting the guns were for protection and said they were not loaded.
Police later searched the apartment Hammond shared with his wife and found five rounds of .22 and one round of .270 in a dresser near an ID bracelet bearing Hammond’s name and a utility bill with his name and the apartment address.
Parties stipulated Hammond was a convicted felon and the rifles were not registered; jury convicted Hammond of one count UPF (felon in possession), two counts UF (possession of unregistered firearm), and two counts UA (possession of ammunition).
On appeal Hammond argued: (1) the two UF convictions should merge; (2) the two UA convictions should merge; (3) UPF should merge with UF; (4) insufficient evidence of constructive possession; and (5) admission of ammunition violated chain-of-custody/Confrontation Clause because the collecting officers were not called.
The government conceded the two UA convictions should merge; the court affirmed the UPF and UF convictions, found sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession, upheld admission of the ammunition, but remanded to vacate one UA conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unit of prosecution for possession of unregistered firearms (UF)	Statute says "any firearm" and is ambiguous; under rule of lenity two unregistered firearms should be one offense	Statute’s plain language and registration scheme contemplate registration and tracking of each individual firearm, making each unregistered firearm a separate offense	Each individual unregistered firearm is a separate unit of prosecution; two UF convictions affirmed
Merger of UF and UPF (double jeopardy)	Because felons cannot register firearms, proof of UPF satisfies UF and convictions should merge	UPF and UF require different elements; Blockburger test shows they are distinct offenses	UPF does not merge with UF; convictions can stand separately
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of rifles and ammunition	Rifles were in mother’s trunk (not defendant’s property), no fingerprints; ammunition in apartment where defendant was not present during search and no lease showing tenancy	Defendant admitted he put rifles in trunk and said they were for protecting his wife; ammunition found next to ID bracelet and utility bill in apartment; calibers matched rifles	Evidence sufficient for constructive possession of both rifles and ammunition; convictions supported beyond reasonable doubt
Admissibility of ammunition (chain of custody / Confrontation Clause)	Government failed to call the officer who actually collected and labeled the ammo, violating chain-of-custody and confrontation rights	Officer Little witnessed recovery, bagging, and marking of evidence and testified about those observations; chain issues go to weight, not admissibility; Confrontation satisfied by cross-examination opportunity	Admission was proper; any chain-of-custody deficiency affects weight, and Confrontation Clause was not violated; ruling affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Speaks v. United States, 959 A.2d 712 (D.C. 2008) (distinguishing statutory-interpretation vs. constitutional claims)
Headspeth v. District of Columbia, 53 A.3d 304 (D.C. 2012) (prior case where UF convictions were merged by agreement)
Washington v. United States, 53 A.3d 307 (D.C. 2012) (explaining elements of UF and UPF and non-merger)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles)
Gorbey v. United States, 54 A.3d 668 (D.C. 2012) (defining constructive possession elements)
Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040 (D.C. 2007) (constructive possession from personal papers and location of contraband)
In re D.S., 747 A.2d 1182 (D.C. 2000) (chain of custody affects weight, not admissibility)