United States v. Baird
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7020
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Baird purchased a stolen handgun from Hatch on Sept. 3, 2008 and returned it for a refund two days later after learning it might be stolen.
- Baird was indicted for possession of a stolen firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) based on brief possession time.
- District court refused to give Baird’s proposed innocent possession instruction.
- Trial evidence showed conflicting timelines of Hatch’s sale, subsequent meetings, and Baird’s awareness of theft.
- Jury asked whether possessing a stolen firearm with reasonable belief of theft suffices for guilt; court answered negatively, leading to a guilty verdict.
- Court vacated conviction and remanded for new trial to consider an innocent possession defense under § 922(j).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an innocent possession instruction is legally available under § 922(j). | Baird entitlement under Teemer; defense available. | § 922(j) should permit an innocent possession defense. | Yes; Teemer-like defense required; instruction warranted. |
| Whether the district court’s denial of the instruction was reversible error under a de novo standard. | Evidence supported instruction; de novo review applies. | No reversible error if not legally required. | Reversible error; required three-part test show error. |
| Whether the instruction was substantially incorporated in the charge or jury guidance. | Court failed to include or adequately convey the defense. | Some incorporation via “knowingly possessed” and briefness instruction. | Not substantially incorporated; jury could have misconstrued. |
| Whether omission of the defense impaired Baird’s ability to present his defense. | Innocent possession defense central; jury questioned the issue. | Charge, as given, aligned with prosecution. | Omission materially impaired defense; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teemer v. United States, 394 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2005) (recognizes limited innocent possession defense in § 922(j) context; extraordinary cases)
- Holt v. United States, 464 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2006) (innocent possession discussed; not mandatory in § 922(j))
- United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (discussed as Mason approach for 922(g)(1); not adopted for § 922(j) per court here)
- United States v. Callipari, 368 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing proposed jury instructions; plenary review of sufficiency)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809 (1st Cir. 1988) (de novo review of sufficiency to support instruction)
- Mercado v. United States, 412 F.3d 243 (1st Cir. 2005) (three-part test for instructional error)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 514 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2008) (context of instructional error analysis)