493 F. App'x 814
8th Cir.2012Background
- Martin, a convicted felon, was charged with being in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Law enforcement found firearms and ammunition in Martin’s house, including in vents and a hidden compartment, plus a handwritten note describing a mini 14 rifle.
- Martin acknowledged during the search that the officers would find weapons and ammunition, and stated, “What can I say? I like guns.”
- Testimony showed neighbors’ observations linking Martin to firearms and a relative taking weapons to Martin’s house; Applegate linked a mini 14 rifle to Martin.
- Martin objected to the district court’s inclusion of the constructive possession portion of Instruction No. 10; the court overruled and gave the instruction.
- The district court upheld the jury instruction on constructive possession and Martin was convicted; on appeal, issues include sufficiency of the evidence and the instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Martin argues evidence was insufficient that he knowingly possessed a firearm. | Martin contends the proof fails to show knowledge of possession. | Evidence sufficient to show Martin knowingly possessed a firearm. |
| Constructive possession instruction | Instruction No. 10 on constructive possession was unnecessary and potentially confusing. | If supported by evidence, the instruction was proper and not error. | Instruction's constructive possession portion was supported by the record. |
| Plain error and legal accuracy of instruction | Even if instructional error, Dooley-like modification could be plain error. | Instructions as a whole adequately informed knowledge requirement; no plain error. | No plain error; instructions adequately required knowledge of firearms in the house. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mann, 685 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of sufficiency; reasonable jury could find guilt)
- United States v. Herbst, 666 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2012) (sufficiency review; standard for reversal)
- United States v. Tucker, 689 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of § 922(g)(1) defense; knowledge required)
- United States v. Reaves, 649 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion in considering jury instructions; evidence standard)
- United States v. Rush-Richardson, 574 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review of jury instructions)
- United States v. Dooley, 580 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (modification of model instruction; constructive possession; knowledge required)
- United States v. Hopkins, 428 F. App’x 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court not plain error for using model instruction when correctly informed jury)