889 F.3d 945
8th Cir.2018Background
- In January 2016 KCPD officers stopped Keith Hardin, discovered an arrest warrant, and he told officers he had ".380 on my left hip." Officers seized a .380 Cobra handgun loaded with six rounds. Forensic testing found the gun inoperable due to a broken trigger and missing parts.
- Hardin, a felon, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm. He stipulated to having a prior felony and that the firearm affected interstate commerce; the operability/design issue was contested.
- The Government moved in limine to exclude operability evidence as irrelevant under the statutory definition of "firearm;" the district court granted the motion but allowed operability evidence if Hardin could show it was relevant to whether the gun’s original design had been fundamentally altered.
- At trial defense counsel twice conceded the gun was originally designed to expel a projectile and stated Hardin possessed what he thought was a firearm; the jury convicted Hardin of being a felon in possession.
- The PSR treated Hardin as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on multiple Missouri convictions (including robbery and burglary), yielding a guidelines range of 188–235 months; the district court sentenced him to 235 months.
- On appeal Hardin challenged (1) exclusion of operability evidence, (2) denial of judgment of acquittal (sufficiency of proof that the object was a "firearm"), and (3) ACCA enhancement. The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence under intervening Eighth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Hardin's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of operability evidence | District court wrongly barred testimony and cross-exam about the gun’s inoperability | Operability irrelevant because § 921(a)(3) focuses on design; operability would confuse jury | Exclusion not an abuse: court left door open, Hardin offered no evidence the gun was fundamentally altered; Rule 403 exclusion proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence on "firearm" element | Gun’s broken condition meant it was not a firearm under § 921(a)(3) | Proof of original design and admission/possession suffice; operability not required | Denial of judgment of acquittal affirmed: evidence (weapon in evidence, officer testimony, defense concessions) sufficient |
| ACCA enhancement applicability | Some prior Missouri convictions do not qualify as violent felonies | At least three predicates existed per PSR | Sentence vacated: after en banc decision in Naylor Missouri second-degree burglary no longer a violent felony, so ACCA enhancement no longer applies |
| Standard of review for evidentiary exclusion | Argued exclusion implicated Fifth and Sixth Amendment, requiring de novo review | Generally abuse-of-discretion review appropriate | Outcome same under either standard; abuse-of-discretion review applied but stricter standard would not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Counce, 445 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir.) (operability may be relevant to design but exclusion proper when confusing and minimally probative)
- United States v. Davis, 668 F.3d 576 (8th Cir.) (damaged gun still a firearm unless design was fundamentally altered)
- United States v. Dotson, 712 F.3d 369 (7th Cir.) (significant damage does not necessarily remove a weapon from § 921(a)(3))
- United States v. Rivera, 415 F.3d 284 (2d Cir.) (broken firing pin did not change the pistol’s design for statute)
- United States v. Dobbs, 449 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.) (lay testimony can suffice to prove an object is a firearm under § 921(a)(3))
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 803 F.3d 994 (8th Cir.) (interpretation of "knowing" possession under § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. en banc) (Missouri second-degree burglary does not qualify as an ACCA violent felony)