FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 24, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14245 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 3 8 - CR- 3 - M CR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C O R E Y D E V O N T U C K E R , a .k .a . R o n R o m e , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 24, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Th edis tric t c ourt su staine d Tuc ker’ s o bje c tio n w ithre sp e c t to on eof theph oto gra

ph s, 1 which depic ted Tucker, alongwith several other individuals, holding “w ads” of cash. 2 C o rey D ev o n T u ck er ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a conv i ct ed fe l on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(e) . T ucker ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on athi s tri al w hen i tperm i tt ed th e g o v e r n m e n t to in tr o d u c e f o u rp h o to g r ap h s o f

T u c k e r , w h ic h d e p ic te d h im h o l d i n g d i f

f e r e n tf i r e a r ms . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. B e f or e tr i a l , T uc ke rf

i l e d a m ot i on i n l i m i ne i n w hi c h he s oughtt o e xc l ude the i ntrodu ct i on of the four ph ot og raph s, pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul es of E vi dence 403 a nd 404( b) . P r i ort o j ur y s e l e c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ta dm i tt e d the phot ogr aphs 1 ove rT uc ke r ’ s obj e c t i on. T he c our ts t a t e d tha tthe ba s i s f orthe a dm i s s i on of

the e vi de nc e w a s tha tthe phot ogr aphs w oul d he l p e s t a bl i s h T uc ke r ’ s “ know i ng po ss es si on of a f

i re arm i n thi s c as e a nd po ss es si on no tby ac ci dentor m i st ake. ” T u c k e ro b

je c te d to th e c o u r t’s ru lin g . A ft erthe j ury w as se l ec t ed, bu tou t si de of i t s pre se nce, T ucker t es t i fi ed that the phot ogr aphs w e r e t a ke n f ora r ap a l bum c ove rhe w a s m a ki ng a nd tha tthe guns i n the phot ogr aphs w e r e notr e a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e a f f i r m e d i t s e a r l i e rrul i ng a nd foun d the ph ot og raph s a dm i ss i bl e. In the j ury’ s pre se nce, P ensa col a P ol i ce O ff i ce r J am es C l ar ence R ee se , Jr . t es t i fi ed that , w hi l e on u ni form du ty a tthe P l at i nu m C l ub , he ob se rved T ucker,3

w ho w a s s e a t e d on a ba r s t ool a ta t a l l t a bl e t ow a r ds the ba c k of the c l ub, dr op a f i r e a r m on the f

l oor . T he f

i r e a r m tha tw a s r e c ove r e d w a s l oa de d a nd r e a dy t o be f ir e d . L a t e r , the gove r nm e nti ntr oduc e d f ourphot ogr aphs tha tw e r e f ound by the p o lic e d u r in g a n u n r e la te d s e a r c h : ( 1 ) E x h ib it 3 d e p ic te d T u c k e rw ith a r e v o lv e rin h is r ig h t h a n d a n d , w h a t lo o k e d lik e , tw o s e m ia u to m a tic p is to ls s tu f f e d in h is w a i s tba nd; ( 2) E xhi bi t4 de pi c t e d T uc ke r , w ho w a s hol di ng a r e vol ve ri n hi s r i ght hand and m aki ng an ob sc ene ges ture w i th h i s l ef thand , t og ether w i th tw o o ther bl a c k m a l e s w ho w e r e a l s o hol di ng f i r e a r m s ; ( 3) E xhi bi t5 de pi c t e d T uc ke r , w ho w as ho l di ng a s m al l ca l i ber, se m i aut om at i c pi st ol i n h i s r i gh thand and m aki ng an ob sc ene ges ture w i th h i s l ef thand , w i th an u ni dent i fi ed bl ac k fem al e, w ho w as h o ld in g a la r g e c a lib e r , s e m ia u to m a tic p is to l in h e rle f t h a n d ; a n d ( 4 ) E x h ib it 6 appe a r e d t o be j us ta di f f e r e ntvi e w of

w ha tw a s de pi c t e d i n E xhi bi t5. A f t e rthe p h o to g r ap h s w e r e a d m itte d , th e c o u r t g a v e th e ju r y a lim itin g in s tru c tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e p h o to g r ap h s . I n i t s c l os i ng a r gum e nt , the gove r nm e nts t a t e d, “ I thi nk y ou c a n dr a w y our ow n con cl usi on s a s t o w hatki nd of peop l e w ou l d b e i n p i ctures t aken l i ke that po si ng w i th m ul t i pl e f

i re arm s, es peci al l y a ft ersi x o r e i gh tw ee ks af t eryou w er e a r r e s t e d a nd c ha r ge d w i th tha tve r y of f e ns e . ” T he di s tr i c tc our ta ga i n i ns truc t e d the4

j ury thati tcoul d n otconsi der the ph ot og raph s i n d ec i di ng w hether T ucker had com m i tt ed the spec i fi c off ense char ged i n the i nd i ctm ent . T he j ury f ou nd T ucker g u ilty o f k n o w in g p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a r m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n . I. Ini t i al l y, T ucker’ s F i fth and S i xth A m endm entchal l enges a re abando ned because he m akes on l y apass i ng re fe re nce t o tho se cl ai m s i n h i s i ni t i al bri ef . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e r ni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1284 n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng i s s ue thatappel l antre fe re nced on l y i n p as si ng i n b ri ef on appeal abando ned). W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e v id e n tia r y ru lin g s f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t ed S t at es v. B re i tw ei se r, 35 7 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 54 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). “ A di stri ct court ’ s e rr on eous adm i ss i on of evi dence does notw arra ntre vers al i f the pu rport ed error had no subst ant i al i nfl uence on t he ou t com e a nd suff i ci entevi dence uni nf e c t e d by e r r ors uppor t s the ve r di c t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F or t e nbe r r y , 971 F . 2d 7 1 7 , 7 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . In order t o con vi cta def endantof bei ng a f

el on i n p osse ss i on of a f i re arm u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) , th e g o v e r n m e n t m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t ( 1 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a c o n v ic te d f e lo n , ( 2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d a f

ir e a r m , a n d ( 3 ) th e f

ir e a r m w a s in o ra f

f e c te d in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . U n i t ed S t at es v . D el ev eau x , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 6 -9 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). T o est ab l i sh5

“ know i ng pos s e s s i on, ” the gove r nm e ntm us tpr ove a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on thr ough di r e c torc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , 440 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) p r o v id e s in r e le v a n t p a r t th a t: [ e ] vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a r a c te ro f

a p e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o r m ity there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or ot her purpo se s, such as proo f of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , prepara t i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, id e n tity , o ra b s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t . . . . F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) . O u rte s t f o ra d m is s ib ility u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) in c lu d e s : (1 ) “th e e v id en ce m u st b e r elev an t t o an issu e o th erth an th e d ef en d an t’ s char ac t er ”; (2) “ the ac tm ustbe es t abl i shed by suff i ci entproo f t o p erm i ta j ury f i ndi ng tha tthe de f

e nda ntc om m i tt e d the e xtr i ns i c a c t ” ; a nd ( 3) “ the pr oba t i ve val ue of the evi dence m ustno tbe subst ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce , a nd the e vi de nc e m us tm e e tthe othe rr e qui r e m e nt s of R ul e 403. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a tth e w s , 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T u c k e ra d m its th a t h e is p o r tr a y e d in th e p h o to g r ap h s , a n d , th e r e f o r e , th e r e is n o c h a lle n g e w ith r e g a r d to th e s e c o n d p r o n g o f

th e 4 0 4 ( b ) te s t. P u r s u a n t to R u le 4 0 3 , “[ a ]lth o u g h r e le v a n t, e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its prob at i ve val ue i s s ub st ant i al l y outw ei gh ed by the dang erof un fa i r pre j ud i ce , c onf us i on of the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ury , orby c ons i de r a t i ons of undue6

del ay , w as t e of t i m e, or needl es s pre se nt at i on of cum ul at i ve evi dence. ” F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 3 . T h is d e te r m in a tio n “c a lls f o ra ‘c o m m o n s e n s e a s s e s s m e n t o f a ll the c i r c um s t a nc e s s ur r oundi ng the e xtr i ns i c of f e ns e , ’ i nc l udi ng pr os e c ut or i a l ne e d, ov er al l si m i l ar i ty betw ee n ext ri nsi c a ctand t he charged offe nse, as w el l as t e m por a l r e m ot e ne s s . ” J e r ni ga n, 341 F . 3d a t1282 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tha s a gr e a tde gr e e of di s c r e t i on i n w e i ghi ng pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd prej ud i ce un der R ul e 403 , w e have “ al so re cogn i ze d thatR ul e 403 i s ‘ an e xtr a or di na r y r e m e dy w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d i nvoke s pa r i ngl y a nd [ t ] he b al an ce . . . sh o u l d b e stru ck i n fav o r o f ad m i ssi b i l i ty. ’ ” U n i t ed S t at es v . D o d d s, 347 F . 3d 893, 897 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he r i s k of undue pr e j udi c e c a n be r e duc e d by a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d 1344, 1354 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd the j ur y i s pr e s um e d t o ha ve f ol l ow e d the l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i ons , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l s on, 149 F . 3d 1298, 1302 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). W e h a v e s ta te d th a t “th e c a s e la w in th is a n d o th e rc ir c u its e s ta b lis h e s c le a r ly the l og i ca l conn ec t i on betw ee n a conv i ct ed fe l on ’ s kno w i ng po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m a tone t i m e a nd hi s know l e dge tha ta f i r e a r m i s pr e s e nta ta s ubs e que nt t i m e ( or, pu tdi ff

er ent l y, thathi s posse ss i on atthe subsequentt i m e i s notm i st aken or ac ci dent al ). ” J erni gan, 34 1 F . 3d at12 81 . S peci fi ca l l y, w e det erm i ned t hat7

e vi de nc e of

the de f e nda nt ’ s pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m on a s e pa r a t e oc c a s i on, w hi c h, i n the J e r ni ga n c a s e c ons i s t e d of a pr i orc onvi c t i on, “ m a ke s i tm or e l i ke l y tha the kn ow i ng l y di d so thi s t i m e a s w el l , and n otbecause of a cc i dentor m i st ake. ” I d. at 12 82 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). I n thi s c a s e , w i th r e s pe c tt o the f i r s tpr ong of

the 404( b) t e s t , the phot ogr aphs w e r e r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n T uc ke r ’ s c ha r a c t e r . S e e M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d at13 10 -11. A l tho ug h T ucker s t i pu l at ed thathe w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on , and h e does notc ont e s tthe f

i ndi ng tha tthe f

i r e a r m tr a ve l e d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , he m a i nt a i ns on appe a l , l i ke he di d i n the c our tbe l ow , tha the di d notpos s e s s the f i r e a r m . H e c ont e nds on appe a l , how e ve r , tha the ne ve rpl a c e d a ti s s ue w he the rhe

“ know i ngl y ” or“ c ons truc t i ve l y ” pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m . N one the l e s s , the g o v ern m en th ad th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g “ k n o w i n g p o ssessi o n ” o f a fi rearm b ecau se T uc ke rne ve ra dm i tt e d t o ors t i pul a t e d t o the f a c ttha the know i ngl y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m . S e e D e l e ve a ux, 205 F . 3d a t1296- 97; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a y l or , 417 F . 3d 1 1 7 6 , 1 1 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n b y a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f T a y lo r ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n f o rb e in g a f

e lo n in pos s e s s i on t o pr ove the “ know i ng pos s e s s i on” e l e m e ntof § 922( g) be c a us e T a y l or ne ve ra dm i tt e d tha the know i ngl y ori nt e nt i ona l l y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m , a nd, the r e f or e , the pr i orc onvi c t i on w a s r e l e va ntunde rR ul e 404( b) t o s how tha tT a y l or8

ha d know i ngl y pos s e s s e d a f i r e a r m a ta nothe rt i m e ) . A s s t a t e d a bove , the gove r nm e ntc oul d m e e ti t s bur de n by pr ovi ng a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on throu gh di re ctor ci rc um st ant i al evi dence. G re er , 44 0 F . 3d at12 71 . A s s uch, there w a s a l ogi c a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the phot ogr aphs a nd T uc ke r ’ s know i ng p o s s e s s io n o f

th e f ir e a r m in th e in s ta n t c a s e . S e e J e r n ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 . F u r th e r , th e p h o to g r ap h s w e r e n o t in a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 4 0 3 . N o t o n ly w er e the ph ot og raph s r el evantt o a cont es t ed el em entof the charged offe nse, they depi ct ed T ucker i n p osse ss i on of a f i re arm , and w er e t aken j usttw o m on ths af t er h e w a s c h a r g e d w ith p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a r m in th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e . S e e id . a t 1 2 8 2 . T h e j u ry h ad th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o ex am i n e th e p h o t o g rap h s, co n si d er th e t est i m o n y, a nd de t e r m i ne w he the rthe guns i n the phot ogr aphs w e r e r e a l . A ddi t i ona l l y , the c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju r y o n tw o s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s , o n e o f w h ic h w a s im m e d ia te ly a f te rth e e v id e n c e w a s a d m itte d , th a t it c o u ld n o t c o n s id e rth e p h o to g r ap h s in de c i di ng w he the rT uc ke rha d c om m i tt e d the of f e ns e c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd i ts pe c i f i c a l l y poi nt e d outtha tw he the rT uc ke rha d a gun i n the phot ogr aphs di d not m ea n thatthe go vernm enthad m eti t s burden o f proof. T he courtal so i nstruct ed the j ur y tha ti tc oul d c ons i de rthe phot ogr aphs onl y f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e of de t e r m i ni ng w he the rornotT uc ke rha d the know l e dge ne c e s s a r y t o c om m i tthe cr i m e c harged i n the i nd i ctm entor w hether he com m i tt ed the ac tfor w hi ch he w as9

on tr i a l by a c c i de ntorm i s t a ke , a nd onl y a f t e ri tha d f

ound tha the pos s e s s e d the f ir e a r m o n th e n ig h t in q u e s tio n . A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though the gove r nm e nts t a t e d i n i t s c l os i ng a r gum e nttha tthe j ury c ou l d d ra w i t s ow n con cl usi on s abo utthe type of peopl e w ho w ou l d b e i n such ph ot og raph s, the st at em ent s w er e r ec t i fi ed by the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S m i th, 91 8 F . 2d 15 51 , 15 62 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ) ( st at i ng that

“ [b] ec ause st at em ent s a nd ar gu m ent s of c ou nsel ar e notevi dence, i m prop er s ta te m e n ts c a n b e r e c tif ie d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n to th e ju r y th a t o n ly the evi dence i n the ca se be consi dere d”). T here fore , the ri sk of un du e pre j ud i ce w a s r e duc e d by the c our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i ons , a nd the r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tthe j ur y di s r e ga r de d the c our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons . S e e R a m i r e z , 426 F . 3d a t1354; W i l s on, 149 F . 3d a t1302. T hus , w i th r e s pe c tt o the thi r d pr ong of the 404( b) t e s t , the phot ogr aph’ s pr oba t i ve va l ue w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , orm i s l e a di ng the j ur y . S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 403; M a tthe w s , 431 F . 3d a t1310- 11. I n lig h t o f

th e f o r e g o in g , T u c k e r ’s c o n v ic tio n is A F F I R M E D .