United States v. Roy Pratt
704 F. App'x 420
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In April 2015 Kentucky State Police surveilled a Hindman, KY home for suspected drug trafficking and obtained a search warrant after observing suspected transactions.
- During the search officers found eight operable firearms in a bedroom (six in an open safe, one leaning against the safe, and a 9mm in a small locked safe), ammunition, prescriptions, and other indicia linking Pratt to the residence.
- Pratt told officers he had lived at the home for about five to six years, described several guns in detail, said he and his girlfriend kept a 12-gauge shotgun by the bed "for protection," and said they were holding the 9mm for a man named Jarrod Williams.
- A grand jury indicted Pratt under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of the eight firearms; a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to 320 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Pratt challenged (1) admission of drug-trafficking evidence as impermissible character evidence/amendment of the indictment; (2) sufficiency of evidence of possession; (3) lack of a jury unanimity instruction as to which firearm; and (4) sentencing classifications under the ACCA and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4.
Issues
| Issue | Pratt's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of drug-trafficking evidence | Evidence of drug activity was improper character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404 and broadened the indictment | Drug-trafficking evidence was res gestae/background that explained how guns were acquired and why they were possessed; admissible and did not amend the indictment | Admitted as res gestae; no constructive amendment; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of possession evidence | Evidence insufficient to prove actual or constructive possession of the charged firearms | Eyewitness testimony showed Pratt handled a rifle; statements, indicia of residence, and the guns’ location support constructive possession | Evidence sufficient for actual possession (handling) and constructive possession (dominion over premises) |
| Jury unanimity on which firearm(s) | Jury should have been instructed to unanimously agree on which firearm(s) Pratt possessed | Particular firearm is means, not an element; all guns were found in same bedroom as part of same transaction so unanimity instruction unnecessary | No plain error; unanimity instruction not required because firearms were part of same transaction and risk of juror confusion was minimal |
| Sentencing: ACCA and § 4B1.4 enhancements | ACCA and Guideline enhancements erroneous; prior state statutes may now carry lower maxima; no proof he used a gun in connection with drugs | Pratt had three prior Kentucky first-degree trafficking convictions that at the time carried 10+ year maxima (qualifying ACCA offenses); evidence showed guns tied to drug trafficking so § 4B1.4(b)(3) application was proper | Classification as armed career criminal affirmed; § 4B1.4 enhancements affirmed (no plain error or abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, [citation="543 F. App'x 525"] (6th Cir.) (standard of review for res gestae evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2012) (background evidence/res gestae doctrine)
- United States v. Churn, 800 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2015) (when prior bad acts form part of charged conduct)
- United States v. Frederick, 406 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2005) (drug activity as probative of motive for firearm possession)
- United States v. Arnold, 486 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. en banc) (evidence linking defendant to a firearm sufficient for possession inference)
- United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2008) (actual and constructive possession principles under § 922(g))
- United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession and dominion over premises)
- United States v. DeJohn, 368 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2004) (particular firearm as means, not an element, for unanimity instruction)
- United States v. Sims, 975 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir. 1992) (unanimity instruction plain error framework)
- McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011) (for ACCA, use law in effect at time of prior conviction)