United States v. Minor
31 F.4th 9
| 1st Cir. | 2022Background
- Minor was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) for possessing a firearm after a 2010 Maine no‑contest plea to Class D assault; the original “Domestic Violence Assault” charge was amended to simple assault and the DV language struck before his plea.
- After Rehaif v. United States, the prior federal conviction was vacated and the government reindicted alleging Minor knew his prior conviction was a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
- At the second trial Minor stipulated to possession elements and many facts about his prior conviction (including that the victim was his spouse) but disputed that he knew the conviction legally qualified as a DV misdemeanor; the district court instructed the jury that the government need only prove Minor knew the factual "features" of the prior conviction (assault, punishable up to 364 days, victim was spouse).
- The district court excluded certain defense evidence (Minor's testimony about his belief he could possess guns and proffered testimony from his state‑court counsel about prosecutorial assurances); the jury convicted and Minor appealed.
- The First Circuit majority held Rehaif requires proof that the defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited category (i.e., knew his prior conviction was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence), found the instructions erroneous and not harmless, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial; it also held exclusion of prosecutor‑representation evidence was improper on relevance grounds (subject to other admissibility limits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea-of-status under Rehaif | Government: proof of knowledge of the factual "features" of the prior offense suffices (need not prove defendant knew the legal consequence). | Minor: Rehaif requires proof he knew his prior conviction legally qualified as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." | Court: Rehaif requires proof the defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited category — i.e., knew his prior conviction was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of knowledge-of-status | State records, arraignment transcript/video, and stipulations suffice to let a jury infer Minor knew his conviction qualified. | Minor: amended charge and alleged prosecutorial assurances meant he did not know his conviction qualified as a DV misdemeanor. | Court: The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find knowledge-of-status. |
| Jury instructions on scienter | Government: instructing on knowledge of the features was adequate. | Minor: jury must be instructed to find he knew his conviction was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. | Court: Instruction was legally incorrect for failing to require knowledge that the conviction placed him in the prohibited category; error was not harmless; conviction vacated. |
| Exclusion of defense evidence (Minor's belief; counsel/prosecutor statements) | Government: Minor's belief about lawfulness is irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; state prosecutor's statements do not support entrapment-by-estoppel. | Minor: such testimony is relevant to whether he knew his conviction made him a prohibited person and may support an estoppel defense. | Court: Excluding proffered prosecutor‑representation evidence as irrelevant was an abuse of discretion; Minor's testimony about his belief is relevant but admissibility remains subject to Rule 403 and other limits on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S. 2019) (Government must prove defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he belonged to the prohibited category)
- Hayes v. United States, 555 U.S. 415 (U.S. 2009) (§ 922(g)(9) covers generic misdemeanor assaults committed against domestic relations)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (U.S. 2016) (reckless assaults can qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence)
- Castleman v. United States, 572 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2014) (use of force can be satisfied by even the slightest offensive touching)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (mens rea requires knowledge of facts that make conduct unlawful)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1985) (mens rea may extend to facts that make the conduct unauthorized, proven by surrounding facts and circumstances)
- Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2015) (defendant must know facts that make his conduct fit the offense)
- United States v. Johnson, 981 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2020) (holds knowledge-of-features approach suffices for § 922(g)(9) under that circuit's view)
- United States v. Guzmán‑Merced, 984 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2020) (Rehaif requires proof of knowledge of legal status for some § 922(g) provisions)
- United States v. Patrone, 985 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2021) (Rehaif implications for knowledge that presence was unlawful in § 922(g)(5) context)