964 F.3d 718
8th Cir.2020Background
- Police stopped Harris after recognizing his car and cited him for driving with a suspended license; officers found a handgun in the driver-door pocket when he exited the vehicle.
- The vehicle was registered to Harris’s girlfriend, Brenna Jo Smith; she consented to a search and officers recovered >90 grams of methamphetamine, other drugs, scales, and cash.
- At the scene Smith initially denied knowledge of the gun; at the station she later claimed ownership.
- Harris was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm; appointed counsel Skrien represented him at a suppression hearing, then withdrew after a breakdown and new counsel Humphrey adopted prior motions without requesting a new hearing.
- The magistrate denied additional hearings and the district court denied the motions; a jury convicted Harris on both counts and the court sentenced him to 150 months (drug) and 120 months concurrent (felon in possession), followed by supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Harris' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by refusing a new pretrial hearing after new counsel was appointed (Sixth Amendment critical-stage claim) | Court should have held a new hearing when counsel changed because motions raised new issues and Harris lacked counsel at a critical stage | New counsel adopted prior motions and did not request a hearing; any claim that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a hearing is better raised under §2255 | No reversible error; claim reviewed for plain error and ineffective-assistance aspects require development in §2255, so not considered on direct appeal |
| Whether admission of testimony about Smith’s statements was hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause | Testimony about Smith’s statements to police was hearsay and (arguably) a Confrontation Clause violation | Defense opened the door by eliciting testimony about Smith’s statements; redirect testimony merely clarified cross-examination; any error was invited or harmless | Admission was not reversible error: defendant opened the door and the testimony clarified defense-raised issues; invited-error doctrine applies even to alleged constitutional dimension |
| Whether failure to instruct jury on defendant’s knowledge of felon status (Rehaif element) was reversible error | Jury instruction omitted Rehaif knowledge element; omission is reversible | Jury instruction error reviewed for plain error; government points to evidence showing Harris knew he was a felon | Instructional error was plain but not prejudicial: record shows Harris had multiple prior felony convictions and told officers he was a convicted felon, so no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether sentencing was procedurally or substantively unreasonable (§3553(c)(1) and §3553(a)) | District court failed to state reasons for imposing sentence at top of Guidelines range and did not adequately consider §3553(a) factors; sentence substantively unreasonable | Court explained it considered defendant’s dangerousness and extensive criminal history and chose the top of the Guidelines; court need not mechanically recite each §3553(a) factor; within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | No procedural or substantive error: district court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and permissibly weighed criminal history heavily; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fiorito v. United States, 821 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2016) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel at critical stages)
- Picardi v. United States, 739 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review when issue not raised below)
- Lomas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1097 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Burch v. United States, 809 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmless-error framework)
- Beason v. United States, 220 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2000) (invited-error doctrine)
- Noe v. United States, 411 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (clarification on redirect that follows defense questioning)
- Bolton v. United States, 908 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 2018) (invited-error principles apply to constitutional claims)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew he belonged to category barred from firearm possession)
- Parsons v. United States, 946 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2020) (elements of felon-in-possession prior to Rehaif context)
- Hollingshed v. United States, 940 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2019) (plain-error review for Rehaif-based instructional errors)
- Fast Horse v. United States, 747 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2014) (new constitutional rules apply on direct review)
- Bistrup v. United States, 449 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2006) (no requirement to restate all sentencing considerations at imposition)