United States v. Marcus Milton
670 F. App'x 341
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Milton, a convicted felon on state probation, was arrested at his residence in Dec. 2014 for parole violations; officers searched vehicles outside the residence.
- Officers searched a vehicle belonging to Milton’s girlfriend that had been seen by his probation officer on multiple occasions; inside they found two traffic tickets in Milton’s name, an envelope with his name, his social security card, and a .40 caliber semi‑automatic firearm in the trunk.
- DNA from the gun’s grip indicated Milton had physically handled the firearm, though the DNA evidence was not conclusive as to how it was deposited.
- Milton moved for a judgment of acquittal after the Government’s case arguing the evidence was insufficient to show he knowingly possessed the firearm; he presented no evidence at trial.
- The sole issue on appeal is whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Milton knowingly possessed the firearm (constructive possession), so the court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove knowing possession under § 922(g)(1) | The evidence equally supports innocence: no direct proof Milton controlled the vehicle or knew of the gun; DNA inconclusive and possibly secondary transfer | Circumstantial evidence (tickets, envelope, SS card, prior use of vehicle, DNA on gun) supports a reasonable inference Milton had constructive possession | Affirmed: viewed in government’s favor a rational juror could find knowing constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of preserved sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir.) (jury may choose among reasonable constructions of evidence)
- United States v. Parker, 505 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.) (weight and credibility are for the jury)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.) (government need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- United States v. Vargas‑Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (abandonment of the equipoise rule; sufficiency standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (verdict upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314 (5th Cir.) (elements of § 922(g)(1))
- United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411 (5th Cir.) (constructive possession may be proven circumstantially; common‑sense, fact‑specific inquiry)
- United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494 (5th Cir.) (constructive possession via dominion or control over premises or item)
- United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.) (constructive possession may be joint)
- United States v. Jones, 133 F.3d 358 (5th Cir.) (ownership is not required to prove possession under § 922(g)(1))