United States v. Brandon Moorefield
683 F. App'x 99
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 13, 2014, plainclothes police saw a man walking who appeared to have a gun under his shirt; when an officer identified himself the man ran. Officers observed the man holding a gun while fleeing. Officers later apprehended Brandon Moorfield; the firearm was recovered on the roof in an alley (Stoner Way).
- Moorfield was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of a firearm by a felon). Identification at trial rested solely on the two officers’ eyewitness testimony; forensic testing did not confirm or exclude Moorfield.
- Moorfield’s defense was misidentification; a defense witness testified that several men fled and that Moorfield ran along Penn Avenue and never entered Stoner Way.
- The district court instructed the jury that evidence of flight may be considered as probative of consciousness of guilt, including language that an innocent person may sometimes flee for other reasons.
- After deliberation, the jury convicted Moorfield; he was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment. Moorfield appealed, arguing (1) the flight instruction was an abuse of discretion and (2) § 922(g) is facially unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (the latter preserved for Supreme Court review).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving an instruction that flight may show consciousness of guilt was an abuse of discretion | Moorfield: the instruction unfairly prejudiced him because flight was undisputed and the instruction lends judicial weight to the government’s version of events | Government/District Court: the instruction is a correct, model instruction and presents both prosecution and innocent-explanation views for the jury to weigh | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; instruction was balanced and supported by evidence of flight |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power | Moorfield: § 922(g) is facially unconstitutional as beyond interstate commerce power (preserved for review) | Government: precedent requires only proof that the firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce | Rejected — court follows binding Third Circuit precedent (United States v. Singletary) and declines to invalidate § 922(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2001) (proof that gun previously traveled in interstate commerce satisfies § 922(g) interstate-commerce element)
- United States v. Steiner, 847 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing jury-instruction abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Green, 25 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 1994) (flight is admissible to prove consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Hart, 273 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2001) (instruction on flight upheld where evidence supports it)