United States v. Little
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13172
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Seven firearms were stolen from a gun store; police received a tip linking Cody Little to the burglary and located him living in a 6x8-foot "well house" on a landlord's property.
- Officers encountered Little exiting the well house, secured the premises, obtained a warrant, and searched the well house, finding ammunition and two stolen firearms (one in a duffel on the bed, one under the bed).
- The landlord, Lacosta Blythe, testified Little lived in and controlled the well house, installed a lock without giving her a key, and reacted upon learning the police found two guns. Blythe later turned over a third matching gun found between sheds.
- Little was tried twice (first trial ended in mistrial); at the second trial a jury convicted him of being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and possession of stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)), with aiding-and-abetting indicted as alternative theory.
- On appeal Little challenged several jury instructions (constructive possession, aiding and abetting, deliberate ignorance, possible guilt of others) and his sentence, which relied in part on classifying prior New Mexico battery-on-officer convictions as "crimes of violence."
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court relied on the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause invalidated by Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Little) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constructive possession requires intent to exercise control | Constructive possession requires both power and intent to exercise dominion/control; jury instruction omitted intent | Jury instruction’s separate definition of "knowingly" ("voluntarily and intentionally") cured any omission | Court held Henderson controls: constructive possession requires power and intent; the district court’s omission was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence of exclusive control and knowledge |
| Whether aiding-and-abetting instruction was proper | Instruction inconsistent with government’s principal theory and unsupported by evidence | Court may submit aiding-and-abetting even if government argues principal liability; evidence supported submission (possible Blythe possession and her felon status) | Instruction was proper; sufficient evidence supported aiding-and-abetting submission |
| Whether deliberate-ignorance (willful blindness) instruction was warranted | Instruction unnecessary—insufficient evidence of purposeful avoidance | Government argued evidence that Little should have known sufficed to justify instruction | Instruction was improper (no evidence of deliberate avoidance) but harmless because overwhelming evidence of actual knowledge existed |
| Whether "possible guilt of others" instruction improperly curtailed defense | Instruction unduly undermined defense that others stored guns | Pattern instruction appropriate where third-party guilt was argued; it clarifies that others’ guilt is not a defense | Instruction permissible and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1780 (2015) (Supreme Court held constructive possession requires power and intent to exercise control)
- Colonna v. United States, 360 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2004) (prior Tenth Circuit precedent holding intent not required for constructive possession, overruled in part by Henderson)
- Ledford v. United States, 443 F.3d 702 (10th Cir. 2005) (panel cannot overrule prior panel absent intervening Supreme Court authority)
- Hishaw v. United States, 235 F.3d 565 (10th Cir. 2000) (exclusive possession of premises permits inference of dominion, control, and knowledge)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court held residual clause of ACCA void for vagueness; used here to reject Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Sorensen v. United States, 801 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2015) (harmless-error standard for omitted mens rea element)
- Griffin v. United States, 684 F.3d 691 (3d Cir. 2012) (exclusive control over premises allows jury to infer knowledge and intent to control items found there)