979 F.3d 1218
9th Cir.2020Background
- Darius King was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At bench trial King stipulated that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce and that he had a prior felony conviction; he also stipulated to anticipated officer testimony proving knowing and constructive possession.
- The district court entered judgment of conviction after denying King’s suppression motion; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Rehaif v. United States (holding that the Government must prove the defendant knew his prohibited status).
- On remand King argued the Government introduced no evidence he knew of his felon status; the Government relied on Ninth Circuit precedent applying plain-error review where defendants failed to object at trial.
- The panel applied United States v. Johnson, found plain-error review appropriate, relied on King’s uncontested presentence report showing prior felony guilty pleas and >1-year sentences, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif’s knowledge-of-status element requires de novo review when not raised at trial | King: conviction must be vacated because Government presented no evidence he knew he was a felon | Gov: failure to object at trial triggers plain-error review; challenge is to legal standard, not sufficiency | Court: plain-error review applies (following United States v. Johnson) |
| Whether plain-error review can be satisfied without trial evidence of knowledge-of-status | King: absence of trial evidence of knowledge requires reversal under Rehaif | Gov: court may look beyond trial record (e.g., presentence report) to show defendant knew status | Court: presentence report showing guilty pleas and >1-year sentences suffices; plain-error review fails and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding that the Government must prove the defendant knew his prohibited status under § 922(g))
- United States v. Atkinson, 990 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (standards for scope of review and challenges to convictions)
- United States v. King, [citation="771 F. App'x 449"] (9th Cir. 2019) (prior Ninth Circuit opinion affirming conviction before Supreme Court vacatur)