Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04174/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jairo G. Montgomery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4174

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas. 

Jairo G. Montgomery, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. 

A jury convicted Jairo G. Montgomery of conspiracy to make a false statement

to acquire a firearm and of being a felon in possession, and the district court1

sentenced him to 24 months. Montgomery appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence, the district court's rejection of his proposed jury instructions, and the court's

denial of a mistrial. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-4174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036317
-2-

A federal grand jury indicted Montgomery on one count of conspiracy to make

a false and fictitious statement to a firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

922(a)(6) and 371, and one count of being a felon in possession, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

The government introduced evidence at trial that Montgomery and his father

James entered Pawn Express to purchase firearms on March 28, 2003. Montgomery

had been to the store earlier and told the owner that his father would be purchasing

handguns for him because he was underage. During the actual transaction,

Montgomery did not tell the store employee he was dealing with that he was underage

but told him that he and his father were gun collectors and the amount he had to

spend, selected six handguns and a rifle, filled out Form 4473 from the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), paid for the guns, and carried them out to his

father's car. James signed Form 4473 as the purchaser. Several weeks later the two

tried to purchase additional guns from Pawn Express but were turned down because

the owner was suspicious about the first sale. Montgomery then asked whether

someone else could buy firearms for them. 

 After two of the purchased handguns were discovered in Chicago, an ATF

agent interviewed Montgomery. During the interview Montgomery declared that he

had helped his father with the ATF form because his father could not read or write

very well. Montgomery also stated that his father was a gun collector who wanted to

buy firearms and provided the funds for the purchase, that he had lived with his father

prior to September 2003, and that the guns found in Chicago had been stolen by

visiting relatives. The agent dictated a report of the interview after he returned to

Chicago. When the agent was asked about his report at trial and whether Montgomery

had had an opportunity to review it and affirm its accuracy, the agent testified that he

Appellate Case: 05-4174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036317
2

The precise question asked by defense counsel was: "He's not had an

opportunity to say whether that is true and correct, has he?" The agent answered: "If

he would like to take the stand."

-3-

could do so "[i]f he would like to take the stand."2 Defense counsel complained that

this was a comment on Montgomery's right to remain silent and that he would likely

request a mistrial if Montgomery did not testify. The court stated that it would

probably overrule such a motion because the agent's comment was invited, and it

offered to give a limiting instruction. 

 The government introduced evidence that a number of Montgomery's

statements were false: James was not a gun collector, and Montgomery was not

underage and he was ineligible to purchase firearms because of an earlier felony

conviction. There was also evidence to show Montgomery's active role in the

conspiracy and his possession of the purchased firearms while carrying them out of

the store and riding with them in his father's car. Defense counsel requested a

conspiracy instruction based on factors cited in a Ninth Circuit case, United States v.

Moore, 109 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1997), and also requested a transitory or innocent

possession instruction. The district court concluded that the Eighth Circuit

instructions on conspiracy were adequate and that no transitory or innocent possession

instruction was warranted. After the jury had already begun to deliberate,

Montgomery's counsel moved for a mistrial based on the statement by the ATF agent;

the motion was denied. 

Montgomery alleges that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conspiracy

conviction because the evidence did not show an agreement to make a false statement

or demonstrate that Montgomery paid for or took possession of the guns, and he

claims that the possession conviction cannot stand because the evidence only showed

transitory possession. A judgment will be upheld where any rational trier of fact

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See

Appellate Case: 05-4174 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036317
-4-

United States v. Barth, 424 F.3d 752, 761 (8th Cir. 2005). The testimony about

Montgomery's repeated visits to Express Pawn, his statement that both Montgomerys

were gun collectors, and his involvement in the purchase adequately support the

determination that Montgomery conspired to make a false statement. With regard to

the possession conviction, the evidence showed that Montgomery carried the guns to

the car and thus had actual possession of the firearms and that he had constructive

possession of the firearms while riding in the car. See United States v. Walker, 393

F.3d 842, 847 (8th Cir. 2005) ("Constructive possession of the firearm is established

if the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located") (internal

quotation omitted). Since Montgomery neither acquired the firearms innocently nor

intended to turn them over to law enforcement, see United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d

619, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2000), he is not eligible for an innocent or transitory possession

defense. 

Montgomery also challenges the district court's rejection of his proposed jury

instructions regarding the elements of conspiracy and his transitory possession

defense. The conspiracy instruction Montgomery requested was based on factors

discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Moore, but the Eighth Circuit pattern instruction

given by the district court adequately informed the jury of the elements of conspiracy.

Montgomery did not establish the factual predicate for an instruction on innocent or

transitory possession, and he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion

in respect to the jury instructions. 

Finally, Montgomery alleges that the district court erred by denying a mistrial

because the ATF agent unconstitutionally commented on his right to remain silent.

Since Montgomery did not make the motion for a mistrial when the evidence was

introduced but waited until after the jury had begun deliberating, we review his

objection for plain error only. Given all of the evidence of guilt, any error would not

have affected Montgomery's substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725 (1993). 

Appellate Case: 05-4174 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036317
-5-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

___________________

Appellate Case: 05-4174 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036317