United States v. Britney Lafaye Barnes
469 F. App'x 733
11th Cir.2012Background
- Barnes appeals convictions for possessing a firearm while a user of unlawful drugs (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) and as an indicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(n)).
- Sufficiency of the evidence and admissibility of prior statements under Rule 404(b) are challenged.
- Trial included a high-speed chase; after stopping, a male (Brown) and Barnes (female) were inside the car with a firearm that discharged.
- Government evidence supported joint possession; Barnes presented a duress defense claiming Brown controlled her under threat.
- Duress is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears burden to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The district court admitted a prior-incident 404(b) statement to show intent/motive, with a limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Barnes argues the government failed to disprove duress. | United States contends evidence suffices and duress does not negate elements. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction; duress does not negate elements. |
| Rule 404(b) admissibility | Barnes argues 404(b) evidence is immaterial to defense. | United States argues it is probative of intent/motive to possess a gun under duress. | District court did not abuse discretion; 404(b) evidence properly admitted with limiting instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 404(b) admission)
- United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (duress defense in felon-in-possession context)
- United States v. Dixon, 548 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 2006) (duress not to negate offense elements; affirmative defense)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1980) (jury instruction on duress when defense proved)
- United States v. Foster, 153 F. App’x 674 (11th Cir. 2005) (not entitled to duress instruction when burden not met)
- United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (limiting instruction effectiveness under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (three-part test for admissibility of other crimes under 404(b))
- United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1992) (three-part 404(b) evaluation en banc context)