United States v. Thomas Steiner
847 F.3d 103
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Police executed two search warrants in Aug. 2007 (camper and Meadow Avenue home) after an informant (Stants) reported Steiner had a sawed-off shotgun; officers found a sawed-off shotgun and various ammunition.
- Steiner was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for being a felon in possession (two counts); convicted by jury on Count Two (ammunition from the home) and acquitted on Count One (camper).
- At trial the government introduced an unrelated arrest warrant (failure to appear on a sexual-assault charge) as "background" and the court refused a unanimity instruction about which specific ammunition supported conviction.
- On appeal the Third Circuit found (1) admission of the unrelated arrest-warrant evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) was erroneous but harmless; (2) the indictment was not duplicitous and no special unanimity instruction was required.
- After the Supreme Court issued Mathis v. United States, the case was GVR’d; both parties agreed Mathis affected Steiner’s sentence because the sentencing court relied on a 1993 Pennsylvania burglary conviction as a Guidelines "crime of violence."
- The Third Circuit held Pennsylvania’s burglary statute set out alternative means (not divisible elements) so under Mathis the 1993 conviction could not qualify as a Guidelines crime-of-violence predicate; the court vacated the sentence, ordered expedited resentencing, and released Steiner pending resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of unrelated arrest warrant under Rule 404(b) | Warrant was proper "background" to complete the story of why officers focused on Steiner | Warrant was irrelevant and impermissible prior-act propensity evidence | Admission was an abuse of discretion under Rule 404(b) but the error was harmless; conviction stands |
| Unanimity instruction / duplicity of Count Two | No special unanimity instruction needed because evidence showed single incident of possession | Count Two was duplicitous (bundling distinct ammunition offenses); jurors must agree on specific item | Indictment not duplicitous; simultaneous possession supported single §922(g) offense; no unanimity instruction required |
| Harmlessness of 404(b) error | Error did not affect guilty verdict (ample admissible evidence) | Error was prejudicial | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given acquittal on Count One, lack of underlying factual disclosure, stipulation to prior felony, and strong possession evidence for Count Two |
| Sentencing enhancement under Mathis (categorical vs. divisible statute) | Pa. burglary conviction was a crime of violence under Guidelines §4B1.2 and justified enhancement | Steiner: Mathis requires categorical approach; PA statute is indivisible and broader than generic burglary so it cannot qualify | Under Mathis, PA burglary statute provides alternative means (not elements); conviction is not a Guidelines crime of violence; sentencing enhancement plain error — vacate sentence and remand for expedited resentencing; release pending resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifies categorical vs. modified categorical approach; alternative means do not permit modified categorical inquiry)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (sets test for admissibility of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (allows limited use of prior-act evidence as background where it fits a chain of inferences)
- United States v. Tann, 577 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 2009) (simultaneous possession of firearm and ammunition at same time/location constitutes one §922(g) offense)
- United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2012) (mere proximity not dispositive; examine defendant’s course of treatment to determine separate possession offenses)
- United States v. Bennett, 100 F.3d 1105 (3d Cir. 1996) (interpreting Pennsylvania burglary statute as broader than generic burglary)