United States v. Cox
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26205
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Cox was convicted by a jury of knowingly possessing a firearm after three prior violent felony convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2), & (e)(1).
- The district court sentenced Cox to 262 months in prison.
- Evidence showed police recovered a loaded .380 pistol in a leather case in the stolen car Cox fled in.
- Barron testified the car was stolen the previous day by Thomason, who claimed to carry a nine millimeter pistol; Allen testified Cox held the gun case with a loaded pistol during the high-speed chase and hid it under his seat.
- Briscoe testified Cox described the arrest, admitted the pistol belonged to him, and sought a lie to beat the charges.
- The defense argued an innocent explanation (Thomason could have hidden the gun) and noted no fingerprints were tested, but the jury rejected this.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowing possession | Cox knowingly possessed firearm; inferences support guilt. | Possible innocent explanation; lack of fingerprint testing undermines. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find knowing possession beyond reasonable doubt. |
| District court's supplemental fingerprint instruction | Cox argues instruction improper and prejudicial. | Instruction properly directed jury to focus on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and could consider absence of prints. | No abuse of discretion; instruction accurate, neutral, and non-prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Van, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Guenther, 470 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2006) (constructive possession requires control over place or firearm)
- United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2006) (exculpatory hypotheses do not defeat guilt where evidence supports intent)
- United States v. Crenshaw, 359 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2004) (credibility determinations are for the jury; not required to reject capable testimony as incredible)
- United States v. Abdul-Aziz, 486 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for supplemental jury instruction)
- United States v. Martin, 274 F.3d 1208 (8th Cir. 2001) (instructional adequacy; accuracy, clarity, neutrality, non-prejudice)