United States v. Christopher Payne-Owens
845 F.3d 868
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 ATF obtained a warrant for Payne-Owens’s Facebook; photos from 2012 showed him making a Four Corner Hustlers four-finger sign and appearing to display a .45-style handgun and ammunition. He also sent messages referring to a “big 45.”
- Payne-Owens was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (3) for possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user; he pleaded not guilty and argued the gun/ammunition might be fake because none were recovered.
- The government introduced Facebook posts and witness testimony explaining gang signs/slang, arguing those items provided context and motive that the pictured gun/ammo were real.
- The district court admitted gang-related evidence as intrinsic/contextual and for motive, and gave limiting instructions telling jurors to consider gang evidence only to assess whether the items were real and motive—not to infer guilt from membership alone.
- The jury convicted Payne-Owens of possessing a real firearm (acquitted on ammunition); the district court denied his Rule 29 motion and a new-trial motion and sentenced him to 63 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang evidence (Rule 404(b)/403) | Payne-Owens: gang evidence was improper propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial (like Roark/Street). | Government: evidence was intrinsic/contextual and probative of whether the pictured gun/ammo were real and of motive; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice. | Court: No abuse of discretion—evidence was intrinsic or admissible for motive; limiting instructions and the narrow use prevented reversible prejudice. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove a real firearm | Payne-Owens: gun never recovered; expert could not definitively say it was real, so reasonable doubt exists. | Government: circumstantial proof (photo, contemporaneous messages calling it a “big 45,” expert testimony on consistency with a .45, threats and capacity to obtain a gun) sufficed. | Court: Evidence sufficient under de novo review; a reasonable jury could find the gun was real based on the totality of circumstantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roark, 924 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir. 1991) (reversal where trial became theme of guilt by gang association and evidence was unduly prejudicial)
- United States v. Street, 548 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2008) (gang-reputation testimony excessive and irrelevant where no discernible connection to charged offenses)
- United States v. Sills, 120 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 1997) (gang-related markings admissible to explain meaning and show motive/opportunity to possess a weapon)
- United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487 (8th Cir. 1994) (gang-association evidence permissible when probative on key issues and not the trial’s dominant theme)
- United States v. Sparks, 949 F.2d 1023 (8th Cir. 1991) (expert testimony on meaning of graffiti/hand signs admissible to provide context)
- United States v. Stenger, 605 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can suffice to prove possession of a firearm even when weapon not recovered)
- United States v. Bowers, 638 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; accept reasonable inferences supporting verdict)
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding conviction on eyewitness/circumstantial evidence when weapon not recovered)