United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1361

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

James Antonio Morrison, Jr.,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: November 18, 2013

 Filed: April 8, 2014

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted James Morrison, Jr., of unlawful possession of ammunition

as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 

Morrison appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting 1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern 1

District of Iowa.
evidence of purchases, sales, and possession offirearms and ammunition by Morrison

and his associates. We affirm.

On April 25, 2011, an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives received a report that Janessa Hove had purchased multiple firearms

within a five-day period. Investigation revealed that Hove resided in an apartment

in Ames, Iowa; the mailbox at Hove’s address displayed the names of both Hove and

Morrison. ATF officers contacted Hove and learned that in early March 2011, Hove

had obtained a permit to purchase firearms, at Morrison’s behest. Morrison, a

previously convicted felon, wanted a firearm for himself as well as firearms and

ammunition to sell to friends. According to Hove, she purchased ten pistols for

Morrison between early March and the middle of April 2011, and she purchased

ammunition for Morrison on three occasions during roughly the same period. 

On April 28, 2011, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at

Hove’s apartment and found a box of nine-millimeter ammunition on a coffee table. 

Hove testified that she had purchased the ammunition for Morrison and given it to

him in the apartment, after an unsuccessful attempt to return it to the store from which

she had purchased it. The officers also seized men’s clothing and personal items that

belonged to Morrison. On July 27, 2011, a grand jury returned a one-count

indictment against Morrison, charging him with unlawful possession of the

ammunition as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)

and 924(a)(2). 

Before trial, the government moved in limine for a ruling that evidence of the

firearm straw-purchasing scheme was admissible. In particular, the government

sought to present testimony from Hove regarding her role in the scheme, statements

fromMorrison acknowledging some aspects ofthe scheme, evidence that officers had

found a firearm in Hove’s car after Morrison consented to a search of it, and

testimony from Scott Edwards that he had purchased two firearms from Morrison. 

-2-
The government argued that the evidence was admissible as res gestae evidence of

the context of Morrison’s unlawful possession of the seized ammunition or,

alternatively, as evidence of motive, knowledge, and intent under Federal Rule of

Evidence 404(b). Over Morrison’s opposition, the district court ruled the evidence

admissible as res gestae. 

At trial, the government offered the challenged testimony. Defense witnesses

testified that Morrison had moved out of Hove’s apartment by the middle of April. 

A jury convicted Morrison, and the district court sentenced him to eighty-four

months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years ofsupervised release. Morrison

appeals, challenging the admissibility of the government’s evidence of the unlawful

purchases, sales, and possession of firearms. We review the district court’s ruling for

abuse of discretion. United States v. LaDue, 561 F.3d 855, 857 (8th Cir. 2009).

We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit evidence

of the firearm-purchasing scheme as context for Morrison’s unlawful possession of

the ammunition. We have recognized that the scope of relevant evidence under

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 includes “evidence ‘providing the context in which the

crime occurred, i.e. the res gestae.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Savage, 863 F.2d

595, 599 (8th Cir. 1988)). “Although res gestae evidence sometimes implicates the

defendant in other acts, we have concluded that where acts are inextricably

intertwined with the charged crime, they are not extrinsic, and thus not merely

character evidence governed by [Rule 404(b)].” Id. at 858. In United States v.

Roberts, 253 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 2001), for example, we held that evidence of a

defendant’s prior bank robberies was admissible under a res gestae theory in a

prosecution for a new bank robbery, because the prior robberies “helped to explain

both the genesis and the execution” of the offense of conviction. Id. at 1134.

The disputed evidence in this case demonstrated the circumstancessurrounding

the offense and tended logically to prove one or more elements of Morrison’s

-3-
unlawful possession of ammunition. See Moore v. United States, 178 F.3d 994, 1000

(8th Cir. 1999). It showed a pattern or scheme of straw purchases and thus helped to

explain how the offense of conviction commenced and occurred. See Roberts, 253

F.3d at 1134. Evidence of the firearm-purchasing scheme was probative of

Morrison’s knowledge and explained how and why he used Hove to acquire

prohibited ammunition. The recent straw purchases by Hove arguably played an

integral role in the offense of conviction. The district court thus reasonably

concluded that the evidence was relevant.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-