United States v. Paul Simplice
687 F. App'x 850
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Simplice was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm found in Florida.
- The parties stipulated at trial that the firearm was manufactured outside Florida and moved in interstate or foreign commerce; the stipulation was read into evidence without objection.
- Simplice argued on appeal that the stipulation was improperly admitted because he lacked personal knowledge of those facts and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the interstate-commerce element.
- He also argued the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury it must accept the stipulated facts as proven.
- The Eleventh Circuit considered invited-error and plain-error doctrines, and reviewed sufficiency of evidence de novo to determine whether the interstate-commerce (jurisdictional) element was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of stipulation that gun was manufactured out-of-state and moved in interstate commerce | Gov: stipulation is admissible evidence; it proves interstate-commerce element | Simplice: he lacked personal knowledge so stipulation should not be admitted; insufficient other evidence | Court: Simplice invited admission by stipulating; even absent invited-error, no plain error; facts suffice to prove interstate-commerce element |
| Whether stipulated facts can establish subject-matter jurisdiction | Gov: parties may stipulate to facts relevant to jurisdiction | Simplice: stipulation cannot substitute for proof of jurisdiction without personal knowledge | Held: de novo review shows agreed facts (manufactured outside Florida, discovered in Florida) establish jurisdiction under § 922(g) |
| Jury instruction requiring jury to accept stipulation as proven | Simplice: instruction deprived him of right to have jury find every element beyond reasonable doubt | Gov: instruction reflected parties’ stipulation and did not affect elements Simplice contested | Held: reviewed for plain error; possible error but not plain—no controlling precedent showing clear error and no showing of substantial prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for interstate-commerce element | Gov: manufactured out-of-state and found in Florida proves travel in interstate commerce | Simplice: argues no independent proof beyond stipulation | Held: evidence (stipulation and record) sufficient to prove interstate-commerce element under existing precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (reasonable-trier-of-fact sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (invited-error doctrine where defendant’s stipulation induced admission)
- United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2016) (parties may stipulate to facts affecting jurisdiction; de novo review of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001) (proving interstate-commerce element by showing firearm’s out-of-state manufacture and location of recovery)
- United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2001) (possession of firearm manufactured out-of-state can satisfy interstate-commerce element)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard requirements)
- United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997) (plain-error review for unpreserved jury-charge objections)
- United States v. Hardin, 139 F.3d 813 (11th Cir. 1998) (defendant’s right to jury verdict and proof beyond reasonable doubt)
AFFIRMED.