# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 30 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Larry Lewis Co on ey

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J ul y

22 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Larry Lewis Co on ey en te red a co nd it io na l gu il ty pl ea to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He ap pe al s,arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in pr oh ib it in g hi m fro m pr es en ti ng a jus ti fic at io n 1
de fen se . W e aff

irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

As a co nv ic te d fel on , Co on ey is pr oh ib it ed fro m po ss es si ng fir earm s. In 20 11
, Co on ey li ve d in a du pl ex wit h hi s fif ty-y ear- ol d br ot he r W arre n Co on ey (Warren ) an d
hi s br ot he r’s fam il y

. W arre n ha d a lo ng hi st or y o f h e a lt h pr ob le m s, in cl ud in g two
he art att ack s.

On Octo be r 27
, 20 11
, W arre n an d ni ne te en -y ear- ol d Dwig ht Ava nc e be ga n to

arg ue in th e Co on ey du pl ex

. As th e arg um en t es cal at ed an d be cam e ph y si cal

, th e two

m en to ok th e fig ht ou ts id e, whi le Co on ey rem ai ne d wit hi n th e res id en ce. Onc e

ou ts id e, W arre n an d Ava nc e wres tl ed on m ud dy gr ou nd

, ne ar whi ch se ve r a l lo os e br ic ks were lying

. Sev e r a l o n lo ok ers ha d ga th ered

, an d so m e were co nc ern ed th at
Ava nc e m ig ht st rik e W arre n wit h on e o f th e n earb y bri ck s. Ava nc e ha d ga in ed th e
up pe r ha nd in th e fig ht an d ha d pi nn ed W arre n to th e gr ou nd

. Afte r at te m pt s to qu el l
th e fi ght pr ov ed un su cces sf ul

, W arre n’s wife

, Res si e, se nt an on lo ok er in to th e du pl ex wit h in st ru ct io ns to te ll Co on ey to ret rie ve Res si e’s gu n fro m W arre n’s be dr oo m an d

t o co m e ou ts id e to br eak up th e fig ht

. Mo m en ts la te r, Co on ey ex it ed th e du pl ex ,

carr y in g th e gu n an d y el li ng at th e m en to st op fi g h t i n g

. Th e m en ig no red th e

co m m an ds

, whe reu po n Co on ey en de d th e fig ht by fir in g a si ng le gu ns ho t in to th e ai r

or in to th e gr ou nd

. W arre n’s in juri es fro m th e fig ht co ns is te d of a cu t lip an d a few

sc rat ch es on hi s ar m s an d h an ds

.

Co on ey was ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Pri or to tri al

, Co on ey fil ed a no ti ce of de f e n s e i n whi ch he di sc lo se d hi s in te nt to

The Ho n o r a bl e Su sa n W eb be r W rig ht

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-pr es e n t a jus ti fic at io n de fen se , sp eci fic al ly, th e de fen se of ot he rs

. In res po ns e, th e

go ve rn m en t fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e se ek in g to pr ecl ud e Co on ey fro m arg ui ng su ch

a de fen se

. Fo ll owi ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ri c t c o u rt gr an te d th e
go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, aft er whi ch Co on ey en te red a co nd it io na l gui lty pl ea, res erv in g th e rig ht to ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n. The di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced Co on ey as an arm ed care er cri m in al

, se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), an d
im po se d t he st at ut or y

m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce of 180 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

II. Dis cu ss io n

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on whe th er th ere i s su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to su bm it an affi rm at iv e de fen se to a jury.” Uni te d St at es v. El-Al am in

, 57 4
F.3 d 9 15
, 92 5 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Hud so n, 4 14 F.3d 93 1, 9 33 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 05 )). W e ha ve pr ev io us ly de cl in ed to “ reco gn iz e[ ] a de fen se of le ga l jus ti fic at io n to a vi ol at io n of § 92 2( g) .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Hud so n, 41 4 F.3 d at 93 3)

. W e ha ve in di cat ed

, ho wev er, th at if we were to reco gn iz e th e de fen se , we wou ld req ui re
pr oo f of th e fo ll owi ng fou r el em en ts :

(1 ) th at de fen da nt was un de r an un la w f u l a n d “ pr es en t, im m in en t, an d im pe nd in g [th reat ] of su c h a na tu re as to in du ce a well -g ro un de d
ap pr eh en si on of de at h or seri ou s bo di ly in jury,” (2 ) th at de fen da nt ha d

no t “ reck le ss ly or ne gl ig en tl y pl aced hi m se lf in a si tu at io n i n w h ic h it

was pr ob ab le th at he wou ld be [fo rced to ch oo se th e cri m in al co nd uc t],” (3 ) th at de fen da nt ha d no “ reas on ab le

, le ga l al te rn at iv e to vi ol at in g th e la w, ‘a ch an ce bo th to refu se to do th e cri m in al act an d al so to av oi d th e th r e a t e n e d ha rm ,’ ” an d (4 ) “ th at a di rect cau sa l rel at io ns hi p m ay be

reas on ab ly an ti ci pa te d be twee n th e [cri m in al ] act io n an d th e av oi da nc e of th e [t hr eat en ed ] ha rm .”

Uni te d St at es v. Po e, 44 2 F.3 d 11 01
, 11 03 -0 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. St ov er, 82 2 F.2 d 48
, 50 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 )). “ To be en ti tl ed

to a jury in st ru ct io n on a jus ti fic at io n de fen se , a de fen da nt m us t sh ow ‘an un de rlyin g

-3

-ev id en ti ary fo u nd at io n as to each el em en t of th e de fen se ,’ su ch th at a reas on ab le

pe rs on co ul d con cl ud e th at th e ev id en ce su pp or te d th e de fen da nt ’s po si ti on .” Id

. at
11 04 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (qu ot in g Hu ds on , 41 4 F .3d at 9 33 ).

Co on ey co nt en ds th at he can es ta bl is h an un de rlyin g ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on as
to al l fo ur el em en ts of th e jus ti f i c a t i o n d e f

en se

. He th us as ks us to reco gn iz e a jus ti fic at io n de fen se to a § 92 2( g) (1 ) ch arg e an d to al lo w hi m to pr es en t th e de fen se
to a jury. Even if we wer e to reco gn iz e a jus ti fic at io n d efen se in th e co nt ex t o f th is

cas e, ho wev er, it wou ld no t be av ai la bl e to Co on ey be c a us e he can no t es ta bl is h al l
of th e req ui red ele m en ts

.

At a mi n i mu m , Co on ey can no t sh ow th at he ha d no reas on ab le

, le ga l
al te rn at iv e to vi ol at in g th e la w. Fi rs t, Co on ey co ul d ha ve cal le d th e po li ce. W e ha ve he ld th at a de fen da nt can no t es ta bl is h th at he ha d no reas on ab le

, le ga l al te rn at iv e to
vi ol at in g th e la w if th e reco rd refl ect s th at he co u l d h a v e cal le d th e po li ce. See
El-Al am in

, 57 4 F.3 d at 92 6; Uni te d St at es v. Bl an ke ns hi p, 67 F.3 d 67 3, 67 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Asi de fro m cal li ng th e po li ce, Coo ne y co ul d hav e at te m pt ed to br eak up th e fig ht w i t ho ut us in g th e gu n. W he n Co on ey ex it ed th e du pl ex , W arre n an d Ava nc e

were wres tl in g in th e m

ud

. Neit he r m an ha d a weap on of an y ki nd

, an d Co on ey
te st ifi ed th at he ne ve r sa w Ava nc e reac h for a br ic k. Bec au se no reas on ab le pe rs on

co ul d co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce su pp or ts Co on ey ’s cl ai m t h a t he la ck ed a

reas on ab le

, le ga l alt ern at iv e to us in g th e gu n to br eak up th e fig ht

, th e di st ric t cou rt
di d n ot err i n p recl ud in g C oo ne y fro m pre se nt in g a jus ti fic at io n d efen se

.

Alt ern at iv el y , Co on ey arg ue s th at th e fo ur -p art te st is to o st rin ge nt in li gh t of
th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t’s ho ld in g in Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a v. Hell er, 55 4 U.S.
5 7 0 ( 2 0 08 ), th at th e Seco nd Am en dm en t pr ot ect s an in di vi du al ’s rig ht to ke ep a n d
be ar arm s fo r th e pu rp os e of se lf- d e fen se

. The Co ur t cl ari fie d, ho wev er, th at th is rig ht was no t wit ho ut li m it at io n, st at in g th at “ no th in g in ou r op in io n sh ou ld be ta ke n
to cas t do ub t on lo ng st an di ng pr oh ib it io ns on th e po ss es si on of fir earm s by fel on s[ .] ”

-4

-Id

. at 62 6. Not h in g in Hell er in di cat es th at we sh ou ld ap pl y a di ffer en t te st in

de t e r m in in g whe th er Co on ey sh ou ld ha ve be en al lo wed to pr es en t a jus ti fic at io n de fen se , and th us we reject hi s ar gu m en t t o t he co nt rary.

III. Co nc lu si on

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n t he res ul t.

I ag ree we sh ou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on pr oh ib it in g Co on ey fro m
pr es en ti ng a jus ti fic at io n def en se

. I writ e se pa rat el y be cau se I do no t ag ree en ti rel y wit h t he reas on s t he co ur t g iv es for affi rm in g.

The co ur t co nc lu de s on e of Co on ey 's reas on ab le

, le ga l alt ern at iv es to us in g a fir earm to br eak up hi s br ot he r's fig ht was to cal l th e po li ce. Und er th e ci rcu m st an ces in vo lv ed in th is cas e, I di sa gr ee cal li ng th e po li ce was a reas on ab le al te rn at iv e. I do

no t un de rs ta nd ho w cal li ng th e po li ce wou l d h a v e s ol ve d th e im m in en t pr ob le m f a c i ng Co on ey whe n he ex it ed th e du pl ex , t he si gh t of Ava nc e ha vi ng cl os e a c c e s s

t o weap on s (th e br ic ks ) th at co ul d ha ve cau se d hi s br ot he r se rio us in jury or de at h

. Neit he r th e go v e rn m en t no r ou r co ur t ex pl ai ns ho w cal li ng th e po li ce un de r th os e ci rcu m st an ces wou ld ha ve rem ov ed th e im m ed ia te th reat of se rio us in ju r y faci ng Co on ey 's b ro th er.

I do be li ev e, ho w e v e r , C oo ne y ha d ot he r reas on ab le

, le ga l al te rn at iv es to

pr ot ect hi s br ot he r ot he r th an to po ss es s an d di sc ha rg e a fir earm

. One al te rn at iv e was si m pl y to rem ov e th e br ic ks fro m Ava nc e's reac h by pi ck in g th em up or ki ck in g th em

ou t of reac h. Ano th er reas on ab le al te rn at iv e was to us e a weap on ot he r th an a fir earm
to at te m pt to br eak up th e fig ht be twee n th e two m en , su ch as a kn ife

. Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. El-Al am in

, 57 4 F.3 d 91 5 (8 th C i r

. 20 09 ), we affi rm ed a di st ric t

-5

-co ur t's reject io n of a jus ti fic at io n de fen se whe re th e de fen da nt en te red hi s ho m e an d

gr ab be d a kn ife be cau se he fear ed an in tru de r was in si de

, bu t th en swa pp ed th e kn ife
fo r a fir earm

. In rel ev an t pa rt, we sa id th e de fen d a nt co ul d ha ve ch os en no t to

up gr ad e hi s weap on fro m a kn ife to a gu n. Id

. at 92 6. Si m il arl y , in th is cas e, Co on ey

co ul d ha ve fir st tri ed to b r e ak up th e fig ht be twee n hi s br ot he r an d Ava nc e wit h a
weap on ot he r th an a gu n.

I co nc ur in th e res ul t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-