8 F.4th 762
8th Cir.2021Background
- In April 2019 Rapid City police arrested Jami Walking Bull on an active warrant and found a handgun in his pocket; he was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) as a felon in possession.
- Walking Bull had a prior South Dakota felony methamphetamine conviction (guilty plea 2002) with a suspended imposition, then probation revocations and resentencings culminating in a 2008 order revoking suspension and sentencing him to four years (one year suspended); the 2008 State Order noted he was informed in open court of the legal maximum imprisonment.
- The government produced recorded jail calls shortly before trial; it offered Exhibit 10 (an October 13, 2019 call) and the district court admitted it over Walking Bull’s motion in limine claiming late disclosure.
- Walking Bull sought to call attorney Alecia Fuller as an expert to explain South Dakota statutory consequences (including suspended imposition and parole eligibility) to show he did not know his conviction was punishable by >1 year; the court excluded the testimony as impermissible legal instruction.
- The district court also refused two defense jury instructions about (1) suspended imposition not constituting a conviction punishable by >1 year and (2) parole-eligibility serving one-fourth of a sentence; the jury convicted, and Walking Bull appealed arguing those evidentiary, instruction, and sufficiency errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Walking Bull) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of jail calls (Rule 16 disclosure) | Calls timely obtained and disclosed; Exhibit 10 occurred Oct 13 so government couldn’t earlier disclose | Late disclosure prejudiced defense; calls should be excluded under Rule 16 | No Rule 16 violation; admission not an abuse of discretion because disclosure occurred promptly after calls existed |
| Exclusion of proposed expert (legal interpretation of SD law) | Expert testimony explaining state law is impermissible legal instruction; law is for the judge | Fuller would explain state-law nuances relevant to knowledge element under Rehaif | Exclusion proper: expert would testify to matters of law, which are for the court to instruct |
| Rejected jury instructions (suspended imposition; parole eligibility) | N/A for plaintiff | Instructions necessary to show defendant lacked knowledge that conviction was punishable by >1 year | Rejection proper: instructions irrelevant/misleading because suspended imposition was revoked in 2008 and parole timing is not probative of Rehaif knowledge element |
| Sufficiency of evidence on Rehaif knowledge element | State Order and sentencing facts permit a reasonable jury to infer defendant knew his conviction was punishable by >1 year | Insufficient evidence that Walking Bull knew his offense carried >1 year; various gaps about receipt/awareness of order | Sufficient evidence: jury could reasonably infer knowledge from plea, presence at sentencing, sentence length, and being informed of maximum sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (knowledge that one belongs to prohibited category is element of §922(g) offense)
- Hyles v. United States, 479 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2007) (Rule 16 disclosure standards and sanctions discretionary)
- S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2003) (experts may not testify as to legal conclusions)
- Benton v. United States, 890 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2018) (expert testimony that amounts to instruction on law may be excluded)
- Owens v. United States, 966 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2020) (knowledge of felony status can be inferred from sentencing events)
- United States v. Davies, 942 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif requires proof of defendant’s knowledge at time of possession)
- Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (reasonable-jury standard for sufficiency review)
- Miller v. United States, 954 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 2020) (observing it is highly improbable a person would not know a felony carried >1 year)
- Daniels v. United States, 932 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for motions in limine)