United States v. Benton
988 F.3d 1231
| 10th Cir. | 2021Background
- Ronald Benton bought and possessed a firearm in Oklahoma in 2018; he had a 2007 New Mexico misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.
- An ATF agent informed Benton that his conviction barred firearm possession; Benton replied he believed he could possess the gun.
- Benton was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and § 924(a)(2); he pleaded guilty, withdrew his plea after Rehaif, and proceeded to trial.
- At trial Benton conceded he knew he possessed the firearm and that he had the domestic-violence misdemeanor conviction, but asserted he did not know that status made possession unlawful.
- The district court excluded argument that Benton could rely on ignorance that his status made possession illegal but allowed argument he lacked knowledge of his status; jury convicted Benton; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif requires proof that defendant knew his status made firearm possession unlawful | Benton: Rehaif requires proof defendant knew his status prohibited possession (i.e., knew possession was illegal) | Government: Rehaif requires only knowledge of possession and knowledge of status | Court: Rehaif requires knowledge of possession and of status only; no separate requirement that defendant know the law forbids possession |
| Challenge to jury instructions for omitting knowledge-of-prohibition language | Benton: Omission deprived jury of the element Rehaif requires | Government: Instruction properly tracked Rehaif (knowledge of status and possession) | Court: Instruction correct under this interpretation of Rehaif; no error |
| Sufficiency of the evidence regarding knowledge-of-prohibition | Benton: Government failed to prove he knew his status made possession illegal | Government: Evidence established knowledge of possession and status; knowledge of prohibition not required | Court: Evidence sufficient because Benton conceded knowledge of both possession and status |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (held § 924(a)(2)’s "knowingly" applies to possession and status elements of § 922(g))
- Games-Perez v. United States, 667 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2012) (pre-Rehaif precedent limiting mens rea to knowledge of possession)
- United States v. Bowens, 938 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif does not require proof defendant knew status made possession illegal)
- United States v. Maez, 960 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2020) (same interpretation of Rehaif; rejects willfulness reading)
- United States v. Singh, 979 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 2020) (Rehaif requires knowledge of status but not knowledge of the § 922(g) prohibition)
- United States v. Johnson, 981 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2020) (knowledge that one has a prohibited status, not ignorance-of-law defense)
- United States v. Robinson, 982 F.3d 1181 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting ignorance-of-law defense after Rehaif)
- United States v. Trujillo, 960 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2020) (post-Rehaif plea-error discussion emphasizing knowledge-of-status requirement)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (distinguishes "knowingly" from "willfully")