United States v. Larry Braswell
704 F. App'x 528
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police Officer Piazza saw Braswell near bushes by an abandoned public-housing unit; a car with Jasmine Isom smelled strongly of marijuana. Piazza checked Braswell’s revoked license but let him leave and warned him not to return.
- Less than an hour later Piazza stopped Braswell for traffic violations (headlights required after dusk and running a stop sign); arrest followed for driving on a revoked license.
- Search incident to arrest recovered cash and a digital scale with marijuana residue on Braswell; a K-9 alerted at the bushes and officers found ~25 grams of marijuana and a loaded .45 pistol together in the bushes.
- While confined in the patrol car, Braswell was recorded muttering; shortly after discovery of the gun he said something that sounded like “prints are all over this,” and the gun had visible fingerprints that were not tested.
- At trial Braswell moved to suppress the evidence, sought a spoliation jury instruction after photos on an officer’s personal phone were lost, challenged admission/interpretation of his recorded mumblings, contested sufficiency of evidence, and contested ACCA predicate status of prior Tennessee convictions.
- The district court denied suppression and the spoliation instruction, admitted the recording, convicted Braswell under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced him as an armed career criminal; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Braswell’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop / suppression | Stop lacked probable cause — video doesn’t show headlights off or stop-sign violation | Officer testimony + video (began after infractions) support that it was dark, headlights were required, and officer credibly witnessed a stop-sign violation | Stop was supported by probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
| Spoliation instruction (lost photos on officer’s phone) | Photos were destroyed negligently; civil spoliation standard applies; instruction required or at least permissible | Photos lost without bad faith; district court found no bad faith; no spoliation instruction required in criminal cases absent bad faith | Denial of spoliation instruction not an abuse of discretion (no bad faith); concurrence questions settled law but finds any error harmless |
| Admission and prosecutorial use of recording | Recording largely unintelligible; prosecution’s characterization of tape amounted to vouching and introduced facts not in evidence | Relevant portions were audible; parties free to argue interpretations after jury heard tape | Recording admissible; prosecution’s closing-argument interpretation was permissible inference from evidence, not reversible misconduct |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 922(g)(1) | No direct link tying Braswell to the gun in bushes; inference-stacking not permitted | Circumstantial evidence (presence near bushes, strong marijuana odor, cash/scale, marijuana on top of gun, Braswell’s mumbling) supports possession inference | Viewing evidence favorably to the government, a rational juror could find possession beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| ACCA predicates & ability to challenge state convictions | Two Tennessee convictions void under state law (concurrent vs. required consecutive) so should not count; challenges to state convictions permitted here | Custis bars collateral attack on prior state convictions at federal sentencing except ineffective-assistance claims; convictions not set aside in state court | Sixth Circuit: cannot collaterally attack state convictions on federal sentencing; aggravated robbery counts as violent felony under binding precedent; ACCA designation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 682 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2012) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings and traffic-stop principles)
- United States v. Boxley, 373 F.3d 759 (6th Cir. 2004) (criminal spoliation instruction requires bad faith; absent bad faith instruction may be denied)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (defendant generally cannot collaterally attack prior state convictions at federal sentencing except for right-to-counsel claims)
- United States v. Robinson, 707 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1983) (admissibility standard for audio/video recordings: must be sufficiently intelligible)
- United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005) (appellate review standard for admissibility rulings; defer to district court absent clear error)
- United States v. Garcia, 758 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency principles in felon-in-possession cases)