Background

• Indictment of Michael Recker in the Northern District of Iowa charging two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and § 924(a)(2) based on prior domestic-violence misdemeanor convictions.
• Defendant moved under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) to admit evidence that he did not use/display a firearm during the predicate offenses and that he believed he could lawfully possess a firearm.
• Government resisted; motion fully submitted for decision.
• Court holds the challenged evidence is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402 because the legal requirement focuses on domestic relationship and not on the use of a firearm in the predicate offenses.
• Court explains the “knowingly” element under § 922(g)(1) relates to the defendant’s conduct, not to his knowledge of illegality, and a hunting license does not alter federal prohibition.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• United States v. Mora, 81 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1996) (relevance standard for evidence)
• United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 1999) (definition of misdemeanor domestic violence)
• United States v. Lomax, 87 F.3d 959 (8th Cir. 1996) (‘knowingly’ element applies to conduct, not illegality knowledge)
• United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2000) (knowledge of illegality not required under § 924(a)(2))
• United States v. Kind, 194 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 1999) (rejection of defendant’s knowledge-of-illegality argument)
• United States v. Achter, 52 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1995) (officials’ boundary of state vs federal authority on compliance)