977 F.3d 671
8th Cir.2020Background
- Nov. 19, 2015: Law enforcement executed a search warrant at an apartment Howard shared with Marybeth Fix; officers found a .45 Hi‑Point pistol, a loaded magazine, and ammunition in the main bedroom.
- The apartment was jointly occupied, but testimony established Howard slept in and exercised dominion over the main bedroom; mail and medication in a nightstand were linked to Howard.
- Additional evidence: a July 2015 pawn ticket showing Howard pawned a firearm, and an April 2018 dash‑cam video of Howard fleeing arrest after absconding from a halfway house (Howard later pleaded guilty to escape).
- Over Howard’s objections, the district court admitted the pawn ticket and the dash‑cam video with limiting jury instructions.
- A jury convicted Howard of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; at sentencing the district court applied the ACCA based on three prior convictions (including a 1992 Wisconsin robbery and a 2009 N.D. conspiracy to deliver ecstasy) and imposed a 210‑month term.
- On appeal Howard argued insufficient evidence of knowing possession, erroneous admission of evidence, and that two prior convictions did not qualify under the ACCA; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howard) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing possession | No proof Howard knowingly possessed gun/ammo; joint occupancy means mere presence insufficient | Evidence of dominion of bedroom, nexus to items (backpack, nightstand with Howard's mail/meds), pawn ticket, and request to fabricate texts supported constructive/knowing possession | Affirmed — reasonable jury could find Howard knowingly possessed firearm and ammo |
| Admissibility of pawn‑shop ticket (prior firearm pawn) | Ticket is impermissible character/propensity evidence under Rule 404(b) | Ticket admissible to prove knowledge/intent; limiting instruction reduced prejudice | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Admissibility of dash‑cam video showing flight/resistance | Video is unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Flight evidence is probative of consciousness of guilt and relevant; jury instructed on limited use | Affirmed — video admissible and properly limited by jury instruction |
| Whether 1992 WI robbery conviction qualifies as ACCA violent felony | Record ambiguous; must assume least of acts (simple robbery) which lacks element of force | Charging document labeled "Armed Robbery," alleged use/threat of dangerous weapon, judgment called it Class B (armed) robbery | Affirmed — court did not clearly err; documents establish conviction was armed robbery (qualifying violent felony) |
| Whether 2009 N.D. conspiracy to deliver ecstasy is a "serious drug offense" under ACCA | North Dakota conspiracy lacks specific intent requirement and thus doesn't match generic federal conspiracy | ACCA's definition requires only that state offense involve manufacturing/distributing; Shular and precedent confirm categorical fit | Affirmed — conviction categorically involves drug distribution and qualifies as a serious drug offense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDonald, 826 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Ways, 832 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of constructive possession: knowledge and dominion)
- United States v. Patton, 899 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2018) (in joint‑occupancy cases an additional nexus is required for constructive possession)
- United States v. Cross, 888 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2018) (evidence of efforts to shift ownership supports inference of possession)
- United States v. Buckner, 868 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2017) (Rule 404(b) admission of prior firearm possession to show knowledge/intent)
- United States v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (flight evidence admissible as circumstantial proof of consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Thornton, 766 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2014) (clear‑error review of which statutory subsection a defendant pleaded guilty to for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Vanoy, 957 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2020) (de novo review of whether a prior conviction is an ACCA predicate)
- Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (ACCA "serious drug offense" requires state offense involve conduct specified in federal statute; no categorical mens rea match required)
- United States v. Boleyn, 929 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2019) (state convictions involving distribution categorically qualify as serious drug offenses under ACCA)