960 F.3d 1070
8th Cir.2020Background
- In July 2017 police stopped an SUV driven solely by Warren Franklin; officers smelled marijuana and Franklin fled, later saying he thought he would go to jail.
- Officers found a small bag of marijuana and a vial of PCP in the center console and Franklin’s ID in a glove box.
- On the floor behind the center console, within arm’s reach of the driver’s seat, officers recovered a backpack containing a loaded firearm, cocaine base, heroin, and drug paraphernalia.
- Officers seized the car keys in the ignition; Franklin had a second set of keys and three cell phones. The vehicle was registered to an unlocated “Al Sterling.”
- A grand jury charged Franklin with three counts of possession with intent to distribute, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At trial Franklin sought a “mere presence” jury instruction (stating mere presence near the items is insufficient to prove knowing possession); the district court refused and gave instructions requiring knowledge and defining constructive possession. Franklin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing a requested “mere presence” jury instruction | Franklin: Absent the instruction, jury could convict based solely on his proximity to the backpack, not proof of knowledge or possession | Government: Final instructions already required knowledge and intent and defined constructive possession; the requested instruction was unnecessary and duplicative | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; instructions as a whole required proof of knowledge and constructive possession (power + intent) and adequately allowed defense argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Solis, 915 F.3d 1172 (8th Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing denial of a requested jury instruction)
- United States v. Juhic, 954 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2020) (jury instructions are sufficient if they fairly and adequately submit the issues to the jury)
- United States v. Christy, 647 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2011) (defendant not entitled to particular wording but must have an avenue to present defense theory)
- United States v. Vore, 743 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2014) (constructive-possession instruction implies something more than mere presence is required to convict)
- United States v. Robertson, 883 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2018) (procedural note cited regarding pro se briefing)