United States v. Berríos-Bonilla
822 F.3d 25
1st Cir.2016Background
- Police responded to a motel disturbance and followed a Ford pickup registered to Berrios; occupants included Berrios, Torres, Álamo, Rivera, and others.
- As officers approached, Álamo exited via the rear passenger door; Berrios looked out that door and fled out the rear driver-side door.
- Officers saw a firearm (a Glock converted to fire automatically) partially protruding from under the rear passenger seat; two magazines and Berrios’s driver’s license were also found in rear-door pockets.
- Álamo testified she felt something hard at Berrios’s waist earlier and later received a call from Berrios asking her to tell police she did not know him.
- Berrios surrendered days later and was tried and convicted of (1) possession by a prohibited person, (2) possession of a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) & (o)), and (3) witness tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1)).
- On appeal Berrios challenged sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of an audio tape for impeachment, and two jury-instruction rulings; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Berrios’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of knowledge for weapons possession | Government didn’t prove Berrios knowingly possessed the machinegun | Circumstantial evidence (seat timeline, license in rear door, Álamo’s observations, flight, and tampering) supports constructive possession | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to infer knowing constructive possession |
| Witness tampering (§ 1512(b)) | Álamo’s testimony was unreliable (omission in earlier interview, plausibility issues) | Álamo’s testimony supported the tampering charge; credibility for jury | Affirmed: reasonable jury could find Berrios attempted to influence Álamo |
| Exclusion of tape of Álamo’s interview for impeachment | District court should have allowed playing tape so jury could hear tone and omissions | Court permitted transcript use for impeachment; playing selective tape risked hearsay/prejudice/completeness problems | Affirmed: defendant had reasonable opportunity to impeach; denial not abuse of discretion |
| Refusal to give two requested jury instructions (constructive-possession warning; instruction on weaker evidence) | Requested instructions would prevent conviction based on mere presence/ownership and allow negative inference from missing fingerprint/Rivera evidence | Trial court’s charge already covered knowledge/constructive possession and lack-of-evidence; missing-evidence argument could be argued to jury | Affirmed: requested instructions were substantially incorporated / unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosado-Pérez v. United States, 605 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Williams, 717 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2013) (actual and constructive possession)
- United States v. Ocampo-Guarin, 968 F.2d 1406 (1st Cir. 1992) (definition of constructive possession)
- United States v. Lamare, 711 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1983) (constructive-possession framework)
- United States v. Ridolfi, 768 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. McLean, 409 F.3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) (linking defendant to firearm through control over area)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (cumulation of evidence can sustain inferences)
- United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992) (permissible inferences from human habits/practices)
- United States v. Martínez-Vives, 475 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (two-step Confrontation/Cross-examination review)
- United States v. Callipari, 368 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2004) (Confrontation Clause inquiry)
- United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d 511 (1st Cir. 2005) (limits on cross-examination)
- United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (importance of tape quality in impeaching recorded statements)
- United States v. Duval, 496 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2007) (instructions on possession and presence in vicinity)
- White v. N.H. Dep’t of Corrections, 221 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2000) (instruction refusal test)
- United States v. Rose, 104 F.3d 1408 (1st Cir. 1997) (missing-evidence instruction unnecessary where defense may argue absence of evidence)
- United States v. Stokes, 124 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 1997) (no cumulative-error reversal where there are no errors)