United States v. Benford
875 F.3d 1007
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Apartment 232 where Benford lived with his girlfriend; officers saw a loaded Lorcin .25 pistol in the front pouch of a computer bag on the bedroom floor near the bed. Benford was detained when leaving the premises.
- Officers found documents tying Benford to the apartment; Benford admitted he lived there. When told about the gun, Benford said, “I guess I’ll have to take the charge.”
- Earlier evidence: (1) text messages ~3 months earlier in which Benford implied he had guns to trade; (2) a May 2 incident (19 days before arrest) where Benford directed his girlfriend to “go get a gun” and then pointed a different handgun at a neighbor.
- The government charged Benford under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); parties stipulated prior felony and interstate-commerce elements; jury decided only knowing possession/constructive possession.
- The district court admitted the texts and the May 2 witness testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) for knowledge; jury convicted. On appeal Benford challenged (1) admission of 404(b) evidence, (2) sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession, and (3) the omission from the jury instruction of an intent-to-exercise-control element.
- Tenth Circuit affirmed the evidentiary rulings and sufficiency rulings under law at trial but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury instruction omitted the intent-to-exercise-control element (as required by later precedent) and that error was plain and affected substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) of texts and May 2 witness testimony | These prior acts were admissible for a proper purpose (knowledge) and were relevant to show Benford knew about and could control the Lorcin pistol | Benford argued the evidence was propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Court: Admissible — government offered for proper purpose (knowledge), relevant, and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given |
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession (knowledge/access/dominion) | Government: location of gun (in open pouch near bed), Benford lived there, his statement on arrest, texts, and May 2 conduct provided nexus showing knowledge and ability to exercise dominion/control | Benford: joint occupancy and lack of direct proof of control made possession inference insufficient | Court: Under law at trial (power and ability to exercise dominion/control), evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find knowledge and constructive possession |
| Jury instruction omission of intent-to-exercise-control element | Benford: instruction lacked required intent element (power + intent), thus conviction may rest on incomplete elements; requested plain-error review | Government: same facts supporting knowledge/dominion also show intent; any error harmless | Court: Omission was plain error under intervening precedent (Little/Henderson). Because evidence of intent was not overwhelming in joint-occupancy context, error affected substantial rights; reversal and new trial ordered |
| Remedy / Relief | Benford sought reversal / new trial based on instruction error and insufficient evidence | Government sought to affirm conviction | Held: Affirmed evidentiary rulings and denial of acquittal; reversed for new trial due to erroneous jury instruction on constructive possession intent element |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (prior firearm possession admissible under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge)
- United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (four-part test for admissibility of other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Jameson, 478 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (constructive possession in joint-occupancy cases requires nexus showing knowledge and access)
- United States v. Little, 829 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2016) (constructive possession requires both power to control and intent to exercise that control)
- United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017) (post-Little plain-error analysis reversing on several counts where intent evidence was not overwhelming)