50 F.4th 685
8th Cir.2022Background
- Donnie Spencer was convicted after a bench trial of two drug offenses and being a felon in possession of ammunition; he appeals only the ammunition conviction.
- Spencer stipulated that he had a prior felony and knew he was barred from possessing ammunition; the disputed element was whether he knowingly possessed the ammunition found.
- Officers executed a search at 1025 W. Locust St. (utilities in Spencer’s name) and found two safes in a bedroom closet; one safe (opened with a key obtained from Spencer’s girlfriend Wendy Sanders) had cash and mail, the other was forced open and contained $1,000, ammunition, and magazines.
- In recorded interviews Spencer told officers the safe was in “his bedroom,” said Sanders had a key, predicted about $1,000 would be inside, and said there may have been one or two guns there (later saying he hadn’t accessed the safe in ~2 years and might have sold guns).
- Sanders testified she lived with Spencer at 402 E. 8th, had access to the safes at Manley’s house, knew money was in one safe, and denied knowledge of the ammunition.
- The district court (bench trial) found constructive possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on Spencer’s statements, utilities in his name, Sanders’s testimony, and the safes’ contents; the Eighth Circuit affirms on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove Spencer knowingly (constructively) possessed ammunition found in a locked safe not in his primary residence | Spencer: Evidence insufficient — he did not live at the Locust residence, had not accessed the safe for ~2 years, made inconsistent statements (one vs two safes), no guns were found, and the bedroom showed minimal occupancy. | Government: Sufficient — Spencer identified the safes and their location as his bedroom, utilities were in his name, he said Sanders had a key, he predicted cash and possible guns, and Sanders testified the safes belonged to Spencer and she had access; these facts support dominion/control. | Court: Affirmed. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, Spencer’s statements plus Sanders’s testimony and other facts support a rational factfinder’s conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively possessed the ammunition. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Obi, 25 F.4th 574 (8th Cir. 2022) (elements requirement for felon-in-possession offense)
- United States v. Brooks-Davis, 984 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Morris, 791 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2015) (sufficiency standard applies to bench trials)
- United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2004) (consider totality of evidence and permissible inferences on knowledge)
- United States v. Coleman, 909 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2018) (definition of constructive possession: dominion over premises or the item)
- United States v. Dooley, 580 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (exclusive possession of premises supports inferences of dominion/control)
- United States v. Ways, 832 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2016) (greater proof required when defendant does not own/occupy premises or occupancy is joint)
- United States v. Cross, 888 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2018) (jointly occupied family home requires more evidence of control)
- United States v. Ramos, 852 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 2017) (jointly occupied residence context for constructive possession)