United States v. Albert Ellis
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4953
8th Cir.2016Background
- Ellis, a felon, was tried and convicted by a jury of: felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)(1)), possession of heroin with intent to distribute (§ 841), and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime (§ 924(c)).
- Police responded to a disturbance at an apartment where a resident (Clancey) had found a gun wrapped in a grocery bag in the basement; the gun was later recovered from the defendant’s GMC Envoy along with small packets of heroin and crack cocaine after a canine alert and vehicle search warrant.
- Clancey testified Ellis (known to her as a heroin supplier) kept cash and retrieved heroin from the vehicle; Ellis denied knowledge and suggested others placed contraband in his vehicle.
- No fingerprints or DNA of Ellis were found on the gun or bag (his fingerprint was found on ammunition); experts testified why such biological/latent evidence can be absent on firearms.
- The district court admitted evidence of Ellis’s 1996 felony heroin-delivery conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); the jury was instructed to consider that evidence only for limited purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Ellis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)) | Evidence showed Ellis owned/controlled the vehicle, had cash packaged like a dealer, and witnesses tied the gun to the scene — sufficient for constructive possession. | Insufficient proof of knowing possession; keys were given to another, fingerprints/DNA absent, others could have placed the gun in the vehicle. | Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer Ellis had dominion/control over vehicle and thus constructive possession. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of heroin with intent to distribute (§ 841) | Heroin was packaged in dealer-style small packets, witness testimony identified Ellis as a supplier, cash bundling and paraphernalia support intent to distribute. | Heroin could have been placed by others; quantity minimal and circumstantial. | Affirmed: evidence permitted a rational jury to find intent to distribute. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking (§ 924(c)) | Ellis retrieved/concealed the firearm in his vehicle near the heroin when police were coming, so he carried it and it facilitated drug activity. | No evidence he carried the gun from the basement to the vehicle or that the firearm had a nexus to drug activity — only co-location in vehicle, which is insufficient. | Majority affirmed: reasonable jury could infer carrying and nexus; concurrence dissented as to § 924(c) (would vacate). |
| Admissibility of 1996 heroin-delivery conviction (Rule 404(b)) | Prior conviction was probative of knowledge/intent; same drug, defendant put state of mind at issue; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice. | Conviction was too remote (19 years) and unfairly prejudicial. | Affirmed: admission did not abuse discretion — relevant, similar, supported, and not overly prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards for sufficiency review and constructive possession)
- United States v. Kirk, 628 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 2008) (deference to jury credibility findings)
- United States v. Griffith, 786 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2015) (conviction not reversed where evidence supports guilt despite alternative explanations)
- Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (interpretation of “carry” in § 924(c))
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) ("during and in relation to" requires nexus to drug offense)
- United States v. Parker, 587 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2009) (vehicle dominion supports constructive possession)
- United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements for possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Espinosa, 300 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2002) (role of firearms in protecting drugs/proceeds)
- United States v. Cowling, 648 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) admissibility standard)
- United States v. Winn, 628 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 2010) (firearm must facilitate or have potential to facilitate drug offense)