## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2341 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T ERRANCE L. K ATZ, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07- CR-40053

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 22, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, a nd E VANS, Circ uit Ju dg es . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The defe nd ant, Terr an c e K atz, was i ndi ct ed o n mul ti pl e co unt s, i nc l udi ngunl awful po ss es si o n o fa fi r ea r m b y a c o nv ict ed fel o n, unl awful po ss es si o n o fa m m uni ti o n b y a conv icte d fel o n, po ss es si o n wi thi nt en t to di st r ibut e m ar ij ua na , a nd un

l awfulpo ss es si o n o fa fi r ea r m i n pur su an ce o fa dr ug tr affi cki n g cri m e. A j ury convi cted hi m o n onl y o ne o f thos e co unts

— unlawfu l p oss ess i on o fa fi re ar m bya2 N o. 08

- 2341 convi cted fel on

— an d f ai led to r ea cha v er di cto n the r emai ni ngc o unt s. On th atfel o n- i n- po ss es si o n c o unt, the j ury convi cted o nl y a s to K atz’ s posse ssi on of a Rem i ngto n 12

- g au g e sh o tgun, no t as to th e o th er fi r ea r m i n the c o u n twh i c h wa s a S t u r m R u g e r S u p e r B l a c k h a wk

. 44-caliber pistol. Th e d istri ct cou rt de nie d K atz’s m oti ons f orj ud gm en t o facqui tta l and hi s m oti on f or a new tr i alpursuant to Fe d eralRule o fCri m i nal Pro

cedure 29 and 33 r espect i vel y. K atz argues on ap p eal th at th e evid en ce w a s ins ufficie n t fo r a jur y t o fin d h im gu ilty be yo n d a re as on ab le do ub to n the f e l o n- i n- po s s e s s i o n c ha r g e u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22( g) , an d t h at the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on i n f ai l i ng to gr ant hi m a j ud gm ent o facqui tta l

. W e a gr ee and rev er se. I n deter m i ni ng wh etherthe evidence i s s uffi ci ent t o su p p ort the v er di ct, we co ns i derthe e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the pr o se cut io n a nd de te r m i ne w hetheran y ra tional tr i ero ff act coul d find the ess enti al e l e m en ts of th e c rim e b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t. U nited Sta tes v. M cL ee, 436 F.3d 75 1, 7 57( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. The evi dence attr i alco nsi ste d o f te sti m ony f ro m se ver al l aw enf orce m ent a gents , a f or ensi c te chnic i an, and tapes o ft wo 9 11 c al l s, a s wel l a s st i pul at i o ns b y the pa r ti es . The sequence ofev ents l eadi ng to the ar re st o f K atz bega n wi tht wo 9 11 c al l s m ade b y Da wnya Gr i ce o n the m or ni ng o fFe bruar y 1 5, 20 07 . In the fi rs t ca l l, Gri ce i nfo rm ed the dispat cherthatherbo yfri end, Katz, was th re at en in g h er w ith bo d ily h ar m , th at h e h ad p re vio u sly hi t her, thatshe w as in a caro utsi de the house becauseN o. 08

- 2341 3 he had fi nal l y a l l owed her to l eave herhom e, and that she wanted hi m r em ove d fr om herhom e. The di spatc h er ask ed Gri ce if K atz had any weapons and she sta ted that he di d not. Gri ce then cal l ed 911 ag ai n and re port ed that Ka t z w as no w o ut s i de h e r h o me a nd tha th e h a d a wea po n, whi chs he de sc r ibed a s a bi gr ev o l ve r . S he sta ted thatshe had i ni ti al l y l i ed abo ut hi s pos ses si on o f a w ea p on b e c au se sh e a ss u m ed h e w ou ld ge t rid of it be f o r e th e po l i ce a r r i ve d. S he the n de cl ar ed th ats he w as u ns ur e wh e the r h e c ur r e nt l y h a d i tb uti ta pp e a re d th at h e m igh t b e c ar ry in g it in h is p a n ts . A p p ro x im at ely thre e m i nutes into th is cal l, the dispat cherto l d G ri ce th a tth e p o l i c e ha d s t o p p e d Ka t z a s h e wa s wa l k i n gd o wn th e st r ee t an d tha t sh e sh o uld retu rn t o he r ho m e. The p olic e d et ain ed K at z a few blo c ks from G ric e’s h o m e. A se ar c h of K at z r e v e a l e d n o w ea p on s, b u t t h e p olic e d id fi nd o ve r $ 1, 80 0 i n c as h o n h i m . Gr i ce repo r te d t o the pol i ce that s he be l i eve d he had als o tak en herhouse key s w h ich were on a N asca r key chai n, and the pol i ce re cove re d key s m atchi n g that desc ri pti on i n thei r sea rch ofKatz. T h e o ffi c e r s s u b s e q u e n t l yp r o c e e de d t o G r i c e ’ s h o me an d s o u g h th e r c o n s e n tt o s e a r c h th e h o me , wh i c h s he pr o vi ded. As the y wer e o bt ai nin g h erc o ns en t, o ne o fthe detect i ves saw an unidenti fi ed bl ack m ale descend f ro m th e ups ta i r s o f the ho m e an d qui ck l y e xi t th r o ug h the front d oor. N either th e d et ective n or any of the offi cers at the s cene w er e abl e t o detai n hi m , and hi s i d en ti ty was ne ve r di sc o ve r ed. The s ubs eque nts ea rch of th e hom e r eve al ed the f ol l owing i tem s o fi nter est :4 N o. 08

- 2341

- a box o f

. 44- cal iberam m unit i on, a sm al l m i rr orwith coca i ne r esi du e o n i ts su rf ace, and a r azo r bl ade abo ve the k i t c he n c up b o a r d;

- a b o x c o n t a i n i n g 7 5
. 4 g r a ms o f ma r ij u a n a i n 5 6 i ndi vi dualb ag g i es i n the k i tc he n;

- a R e mi ng t o n 1 2

- g a ug e s ho t g unwi th a n a t t a c he d s c o pe betw een the m attress an d th e box sp rings in an u p stairs b e d r o o m;

- a bl ack zip pered ba g c ontaini ng 2. 2 g ra m s o fcr ack co c a i n e a n d “ fe ma l e p r o d u c t s ” s u c h a s ma k e u p a nd p ossibly fem inine hy giene prod uc ts in an u p stairs bedro om cl ose t;

- a bl ac knyl o n co atco nt aini ng. 8 g r ams o fc r ac kc o ca i ne i n the dini ng r oo m cl ose t;

- a c a mou fl a g e b a c k pa c kc o nt a i ning4 p l a s t i c b a g g i es o fm ar ij u a n a t o t a l i n g1 9
. 4 2 g r a ms o n a c h a i r i n the l i vi ng/ dini ng r oo m ar ea;

- a l o a d e d

. 4 4

- c a l ib e r St ur m R u g e r S u p e r B l a c k h a wk pis tolco nceal ed i n the cei l i ng r after s o fthe base m ent. A f orens ic evide n c e te ch nician conc lud ed that K atz’s f i n g e r p r i n t s we r e o n th e R e mi n g t o n 1 2

- g a u g e s h o tg un an d de tac habl e sc o pe f o und in the matt r es s o fthe up sta i rs bedr oo m , and on th e sm all m i rr orf ound on to p of the ki tchen cupboard. The techni ci an tes ti fi ed that th er e was no way o fde ter m i ni ngho w ol d a fi ng er pr i nt w as, o r w hen a fi nger pri nt was tr ansfer re d to an o bj ect. The parti es sti pu l ate d that “ Pri orto F eb ruar y 1 5, 20 07, th e d ef en dan t, Te r r an ce L. Kat z, ha d be en co nv i ct ed o f aN o. 08

- 2341 5 cri m e that was punishab l e b y a te rm o fi m pri sonm ent o f m or e t h an on e ye ar u n d er th e la w s o f th e St at e o f Ill in ois .” The parti es al so sti pu l ate d that Gri ce had e nter ed i nto a l eas e forthe proper ty and that sh e fi rs t t oo k pos ses si on ofthe re ntalpro pertyo n J anuary3, 20 07. N ei th erGri ce n or K at z t es tifie d atth e t ria l. T he f e lon-i n-p ossess ion cou nt, 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g), o n whi chKat z was c o nv i ct ed pr o hibit ed th e k no wi ng posse ssi on o fa Rem i ngto n 12- gauge sho tgun, w h ich had previ ou sl y t ra vel ed i n i nter sta te com m er ce, bya p e r s o n w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n c o n v i c t e d o fa c r i me puni sh ab l e byi m pr i so nm en t f o r a t er m e xc ee di ngo ne yea r. I n or der t o convi ct Katz of th at charg e, the gov er nm ent was r equi re d to p rove thre e e l em ents: ( 1) Katz ha d a pr ev i o us fel o ny c o nv i ct i o n; ( 2) he po ssesse d the Re m i ng to n 1 2- g au g e sh o tgun a fte r tha t co nv i ct i on; a nd ( 3) the fi re ar m had tr avel ed i n oraffecte d i nter sta te com m erce p riorto th e tim e K atz p ossess ed i t. T he third el e men ta nd fi r s te l e men t s a r e n o tc o nt e s t e d. T he r e f o r e, th e is su e o n ap p e a l i s w h et h er th er e w as su fficie n t e vidence f ora j ury to fin d bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt that K atz posse sse d the s hotgun on F ebruary15 , 20 07, wh i ch was the d ate o fthe i nc i den t he r e. Tha t dat e i s th e re l evantf ocus because the parti es’ st ip u l ati on o nl y pr ovi ded that pri or to Febr uary 15, K atz had b een co nvi cted ofa cri m e punis habl e byi m pri sonm ent o fm or e than one yea r. A ccor dingl y, posses sion ofthe shot gun on a n ear l i er date w oul d no t est abl i sh the seco nd el em en t of the o ffense. There i s absol utel y no ev i dence, however, thatKatz was i n ph y si ca l po ss es si o n o fthe sho tgun onFe br ua r y 1 5. The6 N o. 08

- 2341 911 cal l m enti ons posse ssi on o fa re vol ver, n ot a 1 2- gauge shot gun. The o nl y o therev i dence ofphysi calposs es sio n i s the te sti m ony ofthe f or ensi c ev i dence te chnic i an th atKat z’ s fi ng er pr i nt s wer e foun d on th e sh o tgun. But the t echni ci an al so tes ti fi ed that i t was notp oss ibl e t o det er m ine ho w l o ngthe fi ng er pr i nt s ha d b ee n o n the shot gun. The pri nts c oul d have be en tr ansfer re d that day, a m ont h e ar l i erwh en m oving Gri ce into her new pl ac e, o r y ea r s ea r l i er . The po i nti s th at we ha ve no th i ng but pu re specul ati on as to w hen K atz w as in p h ysi cal conta ct with the shot gun. A j ury cannot sp ecul ate i ts w ay ou t o f re a s o n ab le d ou b t. U nited Sta tes v. G rov es , 470 F
. 3 d 3 1 1 , 3 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ S pe c ul a t i o n c a nn o t be th e ba si s f o r pr o o fi n the c i vi l c o nt ex t m uchl es s th e bas is for proof beyon d a reasona ble dou bt.”). W e a re l eft, then, with the al ternativ e m eans ofes tabl i shi ng poss ess i on

— const ructi ve posse ssi on. Constr ucti ve po ss es si o n may b e estab li sh ed byde m o ns tr at i ngtha t th e defe n d an t know i ngl y had the power and i ntenti on t o exer ci se dom i ni on a nd co ntro l o vert h e obj ect, ei ther di r ectl y o r thr o ug h o th er s, thus e st ab l i sh i nga ne xus b et w ee n h im se lf an d th e o bj ec t. U n it ed States v. Irb y, 55 8 F.3 d 65 1, 6 5 4 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. R o gers , 54 2 F.3 d 19 7, 2 0 2 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. C asti ll o , 40 6 F
. 3 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. “ I fa p e r s o n e xe r c i ses exc lusiv e contr olo ver a p rem i ses , then const ructi ve posse ss ion of a w ea p on fou n d th er ein ca n be infe rre d .” C asti ll o , 40 6 F
. 3d at 812. The co ntro l o verthe prem ises al l ow s th e j ury to i nfe r the know l edge a nd i ntent to c on tr ol th e objec ts w ith in th os e pr em ise s, an d ac c or d in gly w e h ave hel d that c onst ructi ve posse ssi on ca n be est ab-N o. 08

- 2341 7 l i sh ed byde m o ns tr at i ngtha t a fi r earm w as se i ze d a t th e d efe n d an t’s res id en c e. U nite d State s v. C aldw el l , 42 3 F.3 d 75 4, 75 8 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U n i t e d S t a tes v. K itch en , 57 F
. 3d 51 6, 52 1 ( 7th Ci r . 19 95 )
. Eve n wher e a d efe nda nt j oi ntl y o ccupie s a pre m i se, i t i s pos sibl e t o fi nd co nstr uct i v e p o s s e s s i o n, b utthe g o v e r nme ntmus tp r o v i de ev i den ce su ppo r tinga ne xus b etwee n the wea po n a nd th e d efe n d an t. C asti ll o , 40 6 F.3d a t 8 13. “ ‘ M er e pr oxi m i ty to th e [o bj ec t], m er e p re se n c e o n th e p ro p er ty w h er e itis l o ca te d, o r mer e as so ci at i o n, wi th o utmor e, with the perso n w ho does co ntro l the [ obj ect] o r proper ty on w hi ch i t i s f ound, i s insuffi ci ent t o supp or t a fi nd i ng o f posse ssi on. ’ ” Ir by, 5 58 F
. 3d a t 6 54, quo tingU nited Sta tes v. D iN ovo , 523 F.2d 197, 201 (7th C ir. 1975). H er e, we ha ve no th i ng m o r e th an pr es en ce on the proper ty and the fi nger pri nts. There i s no ev i dence w hatsoe verthatKatz r esi ded atthe prem i ses , or ev en that he had ever st ayed at the hom e forany peri od ofti m e. T h e o n l y e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n d i c a t e s th a tth e h o me bel onge d to Gri ce e xcl usi vel y: the l ease was i n her nam e; she d id n ot want to l eave hi m i n the hom e when she left f orwork; she cal l ed pol i ce t o have hi m r em ove d f r o m h e r ho me; a nd s he po s s e s s e d the k e y s . H e a pparentl y di d not hav e k eys bec ause h e took hers wh en he l eft the pre m i ses . There ar e no ne o fthe i nd i c ia o f j oin t p os se ss ion o ft h e p re m ise s t h at w e h av e fo u n d in othe r case s. F or ins ta nc e, i n Ir by, 5 58 F
. 3d at6 54, the c o ur t co nsi dered wh ether th e d ef endant had const ructi ve posse ssi on o fcr ack coc ai ne in a h ouse. T he defendant w as8 N o. 08

- 2341

o bs er ve d e xi tinga nd r ee nt er ing th e ho us e afte r fee di ng a do g the r e whi c h wa s s o me i nd i c a t i o n tha t he o ccupie d th e p re m ise s. Id. P hy si ca l e vi den ce l i nk ed hi m wi ththe m ast erbedr oo m i n w hi ch bag gi es ofm ar ij uana and cr ack c o c a in e w er e in te rm in gle d

. Id. S pe c i fi c a l l y, the ma s t er bedro om co ntained h is stat e i denti fi cati on ca rd, so ci al secur i ty car d, and m ai l address ed to him

. Id. Te st i m o ny al so e st abli shed that he ca m e fro m the house, walk ed to a c a r , an d at te m p te d to se ll m ar ij u an a. Id. That e vi dence provi ded a nexus bet w een th e d efendant and the obj ect he was char ged with posse ssi ng. S ee also R o gers , 54 2 F
. 3d a t2 0 2 ( th e d e fe n d a n t sp e ntmo r e th a n 8 0 % o fh i s t i me l i vingwi thhi s g i r l f r i en d a t th e apa r tmentw he r e th e fi r ea r m s wer e f o und, he g av e th e fi r ea r m s to h er, a nd he kn ew p r ec ise ly w h er e t h ey u su ally w er e s to re d ); U nited State s v. Kel ly, 5 19 F.3d 35 5, 3 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( th e defen dan t had ke ys to the a par tmentwher e th e dr ug s an d gun w er e found, gave the apart m ent a s hi s a dd re ss, m ai l a ddr es se d t o him w as f o und in the r o o m wi ththe co nt r ab an d, dr ug s f o und e l se wher e i n the a par tment w er e p ac ka ge d sim i l a rly to th at atth e s c en e o f h is arre st , a nd he r efer re d to the gun and the drugs as belon gin g t o h im ); U ni t e d S t ates v
. Thom as , 32 1 F
. 3d 627, 63 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( constructi ve posse ssi on o ffi re ar m s ba sed i n pa rt o n t he cl ose pro xi m i ty to the defendant can be properwh er e the weapon i s f ound in ar eas o ve r w hi ch the defendant exer ci sed co ntro l, but coul d no t b e e stabl i shed by m er e p ro x im ity w here i t i s f ound in the a re a un d er an ap artm en t bu il d ing’s entra n c e stairs

— a p u b lic ar ea w h ich t h e d efe n d an t d id n otco n tr ol). See a lso C aldw el l , 423 F.3d at75 8; C asti ll o , 40 6 F
. 3d at 813.N o. 08

- 2341 9 N o such nexus has been est ablish ed her e. N o bi l l s, m ai l o r f or m s o fi denti fi cati on i n K atz’ s nam e were disc ov er ed in t h e h o m e , no r w as th er e t es tim on y t h at h is cl o th es wer e f o und the r e. I n s ho r t, we ha ve no th i ng ex ce pt hi s appa r en tly unwe l co m e v i si t th atda y, a nd the fi nger pri nts o n the shot gun. T h ere i s no ev i dence that the fi nger pri nts w er e m ade on Febr uary 15 . Ther ef o r e, the pr i nt s ar e r el ev an t o nl y i n indica tingtha t he at som e po int in tim e had touc he d the sh otgu n. Th ere w as no t est i m ony that the s hotg un bel onge d t o him at any point i n ti m e, s u c h a s m i ght ind i cate an a w ar eness ofi ts curr ent l oca ti on a t the house

. The gov er nm ent ar gues that K atz exer ci sed “d om i ni on an d co n tr ol” ov er G ric e’s res id en c e b ec au se h e w as in h e r h o u s e th r e a t e n i n gh e r a n d f o r s o me p e r i o d o ft i me re fused to all ow her t o l eave , and by sw i ping the k eys f ro m th e h o me he c o ul d r e t urn the r e a twi l l t o r e t r i eve an y i te m s. The g o ve r nm en t fur th erpo stulates tha t th e $1, 8 0 0 i n c a s h a s we l l a s the fi ng e r pr i nt s o n the mi r r or wi thc o ca i ne r es i due s ug g es ts tha t Kat z co nt r o l l ed th e d rug b us iness at th e hom e, an d th a t d rug d ealers o fte n po ss es s g uns t o pr o te ctthe i r dr ugs ta sh

. Fi rs t, we note that the j ourne y from cas h-in-hi sp ocket and fingerp rints-on-a-m irr or to dru g-de aleroper ati n g-fro m - the- house i s o ne thatcannotsur vi ve the r eas onabl e doubt sta nd ar d by a ny co ncepti on o fi t. The cash i n hi s pock et coul d h av e be en o btained law fu lly, co u ld h av e res u lte d fro m d ru g d ea lin g, or c ou ld h a v e b e e n s t o l e n fr o m G r i c e ’ s h o me

— the ho m e i n w hi ch the dr ug s we r e f o un d. Th e r e i s s i mpl y no thing to10 N o. 08

- 2341 i nd i cate thatKatz was a d ru g d eal ero perat i ng fro m the ho use. The drugs w er e found thro ughout the house , no t i n a c en tral loc at i o n fr o m whi cha n o ut si dermight o p e r a t e , a n d th e b a g c o n t a i n i n g c r a c k c o c a i n e i n t he up sta i rs bedro om conta i ned “fem al e i tem s. ” Th is is nothi ng but pu re specul at ion , and i s no t e nough to su ppo r t a cr i m i na l c o nv i ct i o n. M or eov er, t he go ver nm ent’ s co ntenti on that he had dom i ni on a nd co ntro l o verthe house and i ts poss e s s i o ns b e c a us e h e wa s a n un we l c o me i ntr ud e r s t a nd s const ructi ve posse ssi on o n i ts head. T h e co nstr ucti ve posse ssion s tand ar d al l ows a j ury to i nfe r posse ssi on f ro m the defe nd ant’ s r el ati onshi p w i th the pre m i ses an d the o bj ec ts i n i t. I fit is the de fen dan t’ s ho m e an d h is p os es sio n s a r e in t h e h om e, th en it is a re as on ab le i n fe r e n c e f o r a j u r y t o a t t r ib u t e th e w e a p o n s i n th e h o me to the de fen dan t as w el l

. S i m i l ar l y, wher e th e defen dan t st ay s a t le as t s om e o f th e t im e a t a n ot h er p er so n ’s re sidence and a weapon i s f ound in a roo m thatal so conta i ns the defendant’s bel on gi ngs, then a j ury m ay i nfe r posse ssi on o fthe w eapon f ound there as well

. That i s fund am ental l y di ffer ent from a n i ntruder w ho s ei zes “co ntro l ” o fa hom e byf or ce. There i s no nexus be tw een the intruder and th e h om e’ s pos ses si on, and no r eas on for a j u ry to co n c lu d e t h at th e in tr u d er h a s t h e k n ow ledge that the weapon is in t h e ho m e o r the intent to exer ci se dom i ni on o r contr ol ove r i t. The co nstr ucti ve p ossess ion stan d ard l oses all of i ts gro un d ing ifi nt erpr e t e d a s the g o v e r nme ntwo ul d s o a s t o i nc l ud e i ntruders such a s K at z. The ev i dence i n thi s ca se w as not su ffi ci en t to s upp ort the v er di ct
. Acco r di ng l y, theN o. 08

- 2341 11 deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourt is R EVER S ED and the case R EMAND ED f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto ente r a j ud gm ent o f acqui tta l o n that count.

9- 22- 09