840 F.3d 477
8th Cir.2016Background
- Walker was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition after police stopped his BMW (cracked windshield), smelled unburned marijuana, searched the vehicle, and found a shotgun, shells, and a high-capacity magazine; Walker was convicted by a jury.
- Pretrial: Walker moved to suppress evidence from the traffic stop (denied after an evidentiary hearing), sought a competency evaluation (case delayed while evaluation completed), and later moved to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds (denied).
- At trial the court limited Walker’s cross-examination about an internal affairs (IA) investigation of Officer Golgart and refused two of Walker’s proposed jury instructions on knowledge/possession.
- At sentencing the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and imposed a 20-year (240-month) sentence based on prior Minnesota convictions for burglary and attempted aggravated robbery.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction (suppression, speedy-trial, cross-examination, jury instructions) but vacated the ACCA enhancement and remanded for resentencing because the court could not confirm, under the modified categorical approach, which alternative of Minnesota’s divisible burglary statute formed the basis of Walker’s prior conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop and subsequent warrantless search | Windshield crack did not obstruct view; stop and any extension were unlawful; Rodriguez limits prolonging a stop | Officer reasonably believed crack obstructed view; odor of unburned marijuana provided probable cause to search | Stop and search were lawful; officer’s observation justified stop and marijuana odor supplied probable cause (Rodriguez not violated) |
| Speedy-trial (Speedy Trial Act & Sixth Amendment) | Delay from transportation and report timing for competency exam should not be excluded; Sixth Amendment violated by ~11.5-month delay | Delays attributable to Walker’s motions and competency proceedings are excluded under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(A); no prejudice shown | No Speedy Trial Act violation (McGhee controls); Sixth Amendment not violated under Barker factors |
| Limitation on cross-examination about IA investigation | IA investigation impeaches officer’s credibility and shows habit of inaccuracy | IA matters are marginally relevant, risk confusing jury, and traffic-stop legality was already adjudicated | No abuse of discretion; exclusion permissible under Confrontation Clause limits (Van Arsdall) |
| Rejection of proposed jury instructions on possession/knowledge | Jury should be instructed that driving the car alone is not proof of possession; gov’t must prove knowledge of illegality | Existing instructions adequately required knowing possession and constructive possession; no requirement to prove knowledge of law (Farrell) | District court did not err in refusing instructions; instructions as a whole adequate |
| ACCA classification based on prior burglaries | Minnesota burglary statutes are divisible; district court failed to use modified categorical approach to identify which statutory alternative applied | District court treated prior burglary convictions as qualifying predicates | Sentence vacated; plain error found because burglary statute divisible and PSR alone insufficient to show which statutory alternative supported the prior conviction; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (limits prolonged unrelated inquiries during traffic stops)
- McGhee v. United States, 532 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2008) (time for competency proceedings excluded from Speedy Trial Act computation)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay standard)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor Sixth Amendment speedy-trial balancing test)
- Van Arsdall, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination under Confrontation Clause; harmless-error framing)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (generic burglary definition for ACCA purposes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (use of modified categorical approach and which documents may be consulted)
- Bruguier v. United States, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing knowledge of facts making conduct unlawful from knowledge of illegality)