United States v. Hebert
664 F. App'x 753
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hebert, a convicted felon, lived in a condemned house in Hugo, Oklahoma; after occupants left, a Code Enforcement Officer (Ricky Britt) found a box labeled with warnings (e.g., “DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVES,” “LOCK UP BLASTING CAPS”) containing blasting caps and other bomb-related items.
- Britt initially thought the contents looked like shoelaces but read the box warnings and examined an item, then secured the box and called police.
- At trial the government proved Hebert was a felon, that the items were explosives, and that they had moved in interstate commerce; only whether Hebert knowingly possessed explosives was contested.
- Agent Stephens testified about Hebert’s post-arrest statement: Hebert said he took the box from an acquaintance’s shed, brought it home, gave it to a housemate (Hood), and claimed he did not know what was in the box.
- Two witnesses gave inconsistent impressions (one initially thought speaker wire or shoelaces), but Britt’s testimony and the box warnings supported an inference that Hebert knew the box contained blasting caps.
- Hebert moved for judgment of acquittal on insufficiency grounds at the close of the government’s case; the motion was denied, the jury convicted, and the court sentenced Hebert to 63 months’ imprisonment; this appeal challenges sufficiency of the evidence on the knowledge element.
Issues
| Issue | Hebert's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Hebert knowingly possessed explosives under 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(1) | Hebert contends insufficient evidence that he knew the box contained blasting caps; some witnesses thought contents were non-explosive | Witness testimony (Britt), the box warnings, and Hebert’s statement that he brought the labeled box home support a reasonable inference of knowledge | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alexander, 817 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence is de novo)
- United States v. Johnson, 821 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir.) (courts must view evidence in light most favorable to government and not reweigh credibility)
- United States v. Markey, 393 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.) (elements of § 842(i)(1) possession offense)
- United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir.) (conflicting witness accounts do not automatically render evidence insufficient)