United States v. Shane Stone
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3363
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Stone was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felon in possession of ammunition.
- Stone requested an instruction requiring proof that the ammunition traveled in interstate commerce, asserting Flores-Figueroa dictates this knowledge must be proven.
- The district court declined the instruction; the government proved interstate commerce but not Stone's knowledge of origins.
- The district court denied acquittal and the jury convicted; Miller held knowledge of interstate travel need not be proven, but Flores-Figueroa questioned knowledge of means of identification, not this statute.
- The court ultimately held Flores-Figueroa did not disturb the interpretation that the interstate-commerce element is jurisdictional and need not be known by Stone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flores-Figueroa overruled Miller on §922(g)(1) knowledge | Stone argues Flores-Figueroa overruled Miller | Stone’s knowledge of interstate travel is irrelevant under Miller | Flores-Figueroa did not disturb Miller's interpretation |
| Whether knowledge of interstate commerce is required for §922(g)(1) | Stone contends knowledge of interstate commerce is part of mens rea | Govt. need only show possession and interstate nexus, not knowledge of commerce | Interstate commerce element is jurisdictional; knowledge not required |
| Whether Flores-Figueroa applies to §922(g)(1) or §924(a)(2) | Flores-Figueroa requires knowledge of means of identification to apply to the statute | Context does not require extending mens rea to interstate element | Flores-Figueroa does not extend to §922(g)(1) |
| Rule of decision for §922(g)(1) mens rea after Flores-Figueroa | Miller controls mens rea requirement | Context supports not extending mens rea to interstate element | Court adopts Miller-based interpretation; affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 105 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 1997) (no knowledge of interstate travel required for §922(g)(1))
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Supra 2009) (knowledge applies to entire object in some contexts but not here)
- Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308 (1998) (overruled in part on other grounds)
- United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of rulings on acquittals)
- X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (interstate commerce element as jurisdictional)
- Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (government may rely on interstate commerce element to authorize federal jurisdiction)