United States v. Guzman-Montanez
756 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2014Background
- On March 14, 2012, police responded after a restaurant owner reported two suspicious men, one of whom the owner saw carrying a silver pistol. Police later located a burgundy Suzuki and two men at a Church’s Chicken near Rexville Shopping Center.
- Officer Mojica observed Guzmán in line and saw a pistol protruding from his waistband; Guzmán left the line, entered the bathroom, and shortly thereafter Mojica found a black Smith & Wesson .40 pistol in the bathroom’s diaper-changing station.
- A silver Beretta pistol was also recovered from the vehicle’s glove compartment; the government introduced this weapon at trial over Guzmán’s objection and the court instructed the jury that Guzmán was not charged with possession of the Beretta.
- Guzmán was indicted on two counts: (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and (2) possession of a firearm in a school zone (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A) & 924(a)(4)); parties stipulated felon status and interstate nexus.
- The jury convicted on both counts; the district court sentenced Guzmán to 60 months. On appeal, Guzmán challenged (a) admission of evidence (the Beretta), (b) sufficiency of the evidence for both counts, and (c) the sentence (procedural and substantive). The First Circuit affirmed count one, reversed count two, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Beretta (relevance/403) | Gov: Beretta completes the factual narrative and corroborates that each man had a different gun. | Guzmán: Beretta irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, inflames jury because it’s an extra gun. | Admission proper; relevant to corroborate two-weapon narrative and district court’s limiting instructions cured prejudice. |
| Sufficiency — felon-in-possession (knowing possession) | Gov: Mojica’s observation of gun on Guzmán, Guzmán’s bathroom entry/exit, and video support constructive possession. | Guzmán: Testimony conflicted; lack of corroboration; he denied possessing a weapon. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could infer constructive possession from circumstances. |
| Sufficiency — school-zone knowledge | Gov: School <1,000 ft (stipulated 140 ft); Mojica testified school was visible and measured distance. | Guzmán: Proximity alone insufficient to prove he knew or reasonably should have known he was in a school zone. | Reversed — proximity alone insufficient; prosecution failed to prove Guzmán knew or should have known he was in a school zone. |
| Sentencing challenges | N/A at this stage (government sought 72 months) | Guzmán: sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable | Not addressed due to vacatur of school-zone count; remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 717 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and sufficiency)
- Candelario-Silva v. United States, 162 F.3d 689 (1st Cir. 1998) (definition of relevance under Rule 401 and probative value)
- Sepúlveda v. United States, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (curative jury instructions can dispel prejudice)
- Wight v. United States, 968 F.2d 1393 (1st Cir. 1992) (constructive possession: dominion and control over area containing weapon)
- Haywood v. United States, 363 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2004) (proximity alone insufficient to prove knowledge of being in a school zone)