984 F.3d 695
8th Cir.2021Background
- 2018 search of an Edina, MN apartment found Brooks‑Davis naked in a bedroom; nearby were shorts with his driver’s license and an Air Jordan bag containing marijuana, a scale, and a Glock .40. A safe in the laundry room contained three additional firearms and a large amount of cash; a short‑barrel rifle was in a second bedroom.
- Adams (co‑defendant) and Brooks‑Davis were indicted on two counts: Count 1 for the three guns in the safe (Beretta, Smith & Wesson, Ruger) and Count 2 for the Glock in the Air Jordan bag. Adams pleaded guilty and testified for the government at Brooks‑Davis’s trial.
- Adams testified he and Brooks‑Davis lived together, sold drugs together, jointly owned the safe and its contents, and that the Glock and Beretta belonged to Brooks‑Davis (Ruger was stolen and Adams’s; S&W was held for a friend). Only Adams’s prints/DNA were found on the guns; Brooks‑Davis did not testify.
- The jury convicted Brooks‑Davis on both counts. The district court varied downward from the guidelines and sentenced him to 105 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Brooks‑Davis argued (1) insufficient evidence of possession, (2) plain Rehaif error because the jury was not instructed that he knew his status as a felon, and (3) procedural error in applying two‑level guideline enhancements for possessing three‑to‑seven firearms and a stolen firearm. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — Glock (Count 2) | Gov’t: Adams’s testimony plus physical proximity supported constructive possession. | Brooks‑Davis: Circumstantial; only Adams’s prints/DNA; may not have lived there. | Affirmed — reasonable jury could find Brooks‑Davis constructively possessed the Glock. |
| Sufficiency — Safe guns (Count 1) / Smith & Wesson | Gov’t: Joint ownership of safe and joint possession of guns supported conviction. | Brooks‑Davis: Insufficient evidence regarding the S&W; no proof he knew it was in the safe. | Affirmed — joint constructive possession instruction appropriate; jury could find joint possession of all three safe guns. |
| Rehaif / jury instruction plain error | Gov’t: Conceded instruction error but argued no plain error because stipulation/record show Brooks‑Davis knew his felon status. | Brooks‑Davis: Failure to instruct on knowledge of prohibited status was reversible under Rehaif. | No plain error — stipulation and PSR/record show he knew he was in the §922(g)(1) prohibited class. |
| Sentencing enhancements | Gov’t: Four total guns (including Glock) support §2K2.1(b)(1)(A); stolen Ruger supports §2K2.1(b)(4)(A). | Brooks‑Davis: Enhancements improper if constructive possession of safe guns not proven. | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err applying both two‑level enhancements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (Government must prove defendant knew he belonged to the class barred from firearm possession under §922(g)).
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (defendant may stipulate to prior‑conviction element to limit prejudicial evidence).
- United States v. Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2019) (plain‑error framework applied to failure to give Rehaif instruction).
- United States v. Payne, 377 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2004) (doctrine of joint actual or constructive possession).
- United States v. Tate, 633 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence).
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four‑part plain error test).