# 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- 12 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Jo hn ny L. Ch at m on

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 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 13
Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

5, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

, Jo hn ny Ch at m on was co nv ic te d of un la wfu l po ss es si on

of a fir earm by a pr ev io u s l y c o n v i c t ed fel on , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ).

C h a t m on ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on , arg ui ng th at th e Gov ern m en t di d no t pr es en tsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ju r y v e r d ic t an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in 1

refu si ng hi s pr op os ed th eo ry -o f-d efen se jury in st ru ct io n. Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d

be lo w, we affi rm

.

W hi le on pa tro l on th e ev en in g of Ja nu ary 19

, 20 12

, Om ah a Po li ce Offi cer

Jo sh ua Kell ey no ti ced a ve hi cl e dr iv in g wit ho ut he ad li gh ts or ta il li gh ts

. He act iv at ed

hi s em erg en cy li gh ts in or de r to pu ll ov er th e ve hi cl e. I t co nt in ue d on fo r

ap pr ox im at e l y t w o bl oc ks be fo re pu ll in g ov er, du rin g whi ch ti m e Offi cer Kell ey
ob se rv ed th e dr iv er m ov in g aro un d in si d e t h e v e h ic le

. Onc e th e ve hi cl e st op pe d,

Offi cer Kell ey ap pr oa ch ed an d a sk ed th e d riv er, J oh nn y Ch at m on , for

th e ve hi cl e’s

reg is tra ti on

. Ch at m on pr es en te d hi m wit h a ren ta l car ag reem en t, whi ch di d no t li st

C ha tm on as an au th or iz ed dr iv er. In st ead

, it li st ed on ly De-Bo rah W il li am s , l a t e r
id en ti fie d as Ch at m on ’s m ot he r, as an au th or iz ed dr iv er. Afte r co nt act in g th e ren ta l

car c om pa ny and run ni ng a ba ck gr ou nd ch eck , Offic er Kel le y de ta in ed Ch at m on

.

Offi cer Kell ey im

po un de d th e ve hi cl e at th e req ue st of th e ren ta l ag en cy an d

co nd uc te d an in ve nt or y se arc h

. D u rin g th e se arch

, Offi cer Kell ey no ti ced th at th e
ch an ge tra y in th e cen te r co ns ol e was lo os e. He rem ov ed th e lo os e tra y , rev eal in g a

co m pa rtment co nt ai ni ng a fir earm

. He th en pl aced Ch at m on u n d e r a rres t.

S u b s e q u en t se arch in g of th e ve hi cl e al so rev eal ed se ve ral te xt bo ok s an d so me
el ect ric al eq ui pm en t, whi ch were id en ti fie d as be lo ng in g to Ch at m on

. Onc e he was pl aced un de r arre st

, Ch at m on in si st ed th at he ha d no t be en dr iv i n g t h e ve hi cl e bu t

rat he r “ th at he was walk in g do wn th e st reet an d th at [th e po li ce of fic ers ] were se tt in g

hi m up .”

A gr an d jury in di ct ed Ch at m on on on e co un t of bei ng a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d

fel on in po ss es si on of a fir e a r m, i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). At tri al

,

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-W il li am s t es ti fie d t ha t s he ha d re nt ed th e v eh ic le on Ja nu ary 1 3. Al th ou gh sh e h ad

di sc us se d wit h Ch at m o n th at he was no t pe rm it te d to dr iv e th e ve hi cl e, he

ne ve rth el es s dr ov e it at le as t on ce. W il li am s te st ifi ed th at no on e ot he r th an sh e an d

Ch at m on ha d dr iv en th e ve hi cl e whi le it was le as ed to he r. Sh e al so te st ifi ed th at sh e
do es no t own an y fir earm s an d ha d ne ve r se en th e fir earm th at was fo un d in th e ren ta l

ve hi cl e. The jury ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t, an d Ch at m on was se nt en ced to si xt y -ei gh t

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

On ap pe al

, Ch at m on ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on on two g r o un ds

. Fi rs t, he

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acqu it ta l

on th e gr ou nd th at th e Gov ern m en t di d no t pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on

th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Goo da le

, 73 8 F.3 d 91 7, 92 2
(8 th Ci r. 20 1 3 )

. “We wil l affi rm un le ss , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th a t may be

dr awn in fav or of th e ve rd ic t, no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d [th e de fen da nt ]

gu il ty.” Uni te d St at es v. Byn um , 66 9 F.3d 88 0, 88 3 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ). “ To co nv ic t [a

de fen da nt ] un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), th e go ve rn m en t need ed to pr ov e [th at ]: (1 )
[h e] ha d pre vi ou sl y be en co nv ic te d of a crim e pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t of m or e

th an on e y ear; (2 ) he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm ; an d (3 ) th e fir earm ha d be en in

o r a f f e c t ed in te rs ta te co m

m erce .” Uni te d St at es v. Gar re tt , 6 48 F.3 d 61 8, 62 2 (8 t h

Ci r. 20 11 ). Ch at m on st ip ul at ed to th e fir st an d th ird el em en ts o f th e of fen se an d

co nt es ts on ly th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm

fo un d i n t he ren ta l v eh ic le

.

Kno win g po ss es si on of a fir earm un de r § 92 2( g) m ay be e i t h er act ua l or

co ns tru ct iv e. Id

. “ Co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on req ui res th at th e de fen da nt ha s do m in io n

ov er th e pr em is es whe re t h e f i r e arm is lo cat ed

, or co nt ro l, own ers hi p, or do m in io n

ov er th e fir earm it se lf. Co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on m ay be es ta bl is he d by ci rcu m st an ti al

ev id en ce al on e, bu t th e go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n th e

-3

-de fen da nt an d th e fir earm .” Id

. (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Eva ns , 43 1 F .3d 34 2, 3 45 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ).

The Gov ern m en t p res en te d a m pl e ev id en ce t o p erm it th e jury to fin d be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t th at Ch at m on kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm fo un d in th e ren ta l

ve hi cl e. Ch at m on was th e dr iv er an d so le oc cu pa nt of th e ren ta l ve hi cl e in whi ch th e

fir earm was fo un d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ti nd al l , 45 5 F .3d 88 5, 88 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )
(fi nd in g co ns tru ct iv e po ss e s s io n whe re de fen da nt was dr iv er an d so le oc cu pa nt of

v e h ic le at ti m e of in ci de nt ); Uni te d St at es v. Hieb er t

, 30 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 09 ( 8 t h C i r

. 19 94 ) (fi nd in g co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on be cau se fir earm was “ fo un d in th e ve hi cl e th at [th e de fen da nt ] was dr iv in g” ). Offi cer Kell ey te st ifi ed th at aft er he ha d tu rn ed on hi s

em erg en cy li gh ts bu t be fo re Ch at m on ha d pu ll ed ov er, he co ul d se e Ch at m on m ov in g

aro un d i n t he ve hi cl e. The ju ry co ul d h av e rea so na bl y

in ferr ed fro m

th is tes ti m on y
th at Ch at m on was hi di ng th e fir earm in th e cen te r co ns ol e co m pa rtment. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Mal on ey , 46 6 F.3 d 66 3, 66 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th at “ qu ic k an d un us ua l

m ov em en ts by th e dr iv er of th e car” be fo re se arch of ve hi cl e co ul d p e r mi t ju r y to

in fer “ th at th e dr iv er m ay ha ve be en tryin g to hi de an ob ject in th e ba ck se at ”); Uni te d

St at es v. St even s , 45 3 F.3 d 96 3, 96 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ As th e of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e

ve hi cl e, St ev en s be nt an d le an ed ov er fo r se ve ral se co nd s, [p erm it ti ng ] th e in fere nc e [th at ] he was pl aci ng th e pi st ol un de rn eat h th e se at .” )

. W il li am s te st ifi ed th at th e

fir earm wa s no t he rs an d th at sh e was th e on ly ot he r pe rs on who ha d op erat ed th e

ve hi cl e si nc e sh e ha d ta ke n po ss es si on of it

. The jury co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly in ferr ed

fro m th is te st im on y th at Ch at m on pl aced th e fir earm in th e ve hi cl e. Th e t e xt bo ok s

an d el ect ric al eq ui pm en t fo un d in th e ve hi cl e were de te rm in ed to be lo ng to Ch at m on

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Kn ox , 88 8 F.2 d 58 5, 58 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (h ol di ng th at pr es en ce

of po ss es si on s be lo ng in g to th e de fen da nt in ve h i c le su pp or te d co nc lu si on th at

de fen da nt co ns tru ct iv el y po ss e s se d co cai ne fo un d in ve hi cl e). Fi na ll y , aft er be in g

arre st ed

, Ch at m on st at ed th at he ha d no t be en dr iv in g th e ren ta l ve hi cl e. Bec au se th is

st at em ent conf

li ct ed wit h Offi cer Kell ey ’s te st im on y , th e jury co ul d ha ve in ferr ed th at

th e st at em en t was fal se an d th at it s fal si ty i n d i c a t e d co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t. Se e

-4

-Uni te d St at es v. W al ker

, 39 3 F.3 d 84 2, 84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at de fen da nt ’s
lying to arre st in g of

fic ers su pp or te d kn owi ng po ss es si on of fir earm ); Uni te d S ta te s

v. Pen n , 97 4 F.2 d 10 26

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ Fal se ex cu lp at or y st at em e n t s a re
ad m is si bl e as su bs t a n t i ve ev id en ce te nd in g to sh ow gu il t.”)

. Tak en to ge th er, th is

ev id en ce pe rm it te d th e jury to in fer th at Ch at m on kn ew th at th e fir earm was pr es en t

in th e ve hi cl e an d th at he ex erci se d do m in io n an d co nt ro l ov er it

. Thu s, th e

Gov ern m en t p r e s e n te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fro m whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d

co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Ch at m on kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm

fo un d i n t he ren ta l v eh ic le

.

Ch at m on co un te rs th at th e fir earm co ul d ha ve be en le ft in th e ve hi cl e by a pr io r
le ss ee. At tri al

, an em

pl oyee of th e c a r ren ta l ag en cy te st ifi ed th at al th ou gh th e

in te rio r of ev ery ret ur ne d car is in sp ect ed

, th e in sp ect io n is “ m or e li ke a gl an ce” th an

a “ de ta il ed se arch .” Thi s te st im on y co ul d ha ve pe rm it te d th e jury to co nc lu de th at a

pr io r le ss ee— rat he r th an Ch at m on —p la ced th e fi rear m in th e ve hi cl e. Bu t t he jury

di d no t dr aw th at in fere n c e

. “[T]he fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d on by th e

go ve rn m en t m

us t be co ns is te nt wit h gu il t, bu t th ey ne ed no t be in co ns is te nt wit h an y

ot he r hypo th es is

, an d it is en o u g h t o c o n vi ct if th e en ti re bo dy of ev id en ce is

su ffi ci en t to co nv in ce th e jury be y on d a re a s o n a b l e do ub t th at th e de fen da nt is

gu il ty.” Uni te d St at es v

. L a m , 3 3 8 F.3 d 86 8, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Ch av ez , 23 0 F.3 d 10 89

, 10 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th e

Gov ern m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe rm it th e jury to fin d th at Ch at m on

kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed th e fi rear m fou nd in th e ren ta l v eh ic le

.

In hi s s eco nd po in t o n a pp eal , C ha tm on arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in

refu si ng to gi ve hi s pr op os ed th eo ry -o f-d efen se jury in st ru ct io n. Ch at m on pr op os ed

th e fo ll owi ng “ m ere p res en ce” i ns tru ct io n:

Jo hn ny Ch at m on co nt en ds he was m erel y pr es en t in th e ve hi cl e an d di d

no t kn ow a fir earm was in th e ve hi cl e. Mer e pr es e n c e o r pr ox im it y to

-5

-a fir earm is no t en ou gh t o su pp or t a fin di ng th at de fen da nt kn owi ng ly

po ss es se d a fir earm , un le ss y ou fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t Jo hn ny Ch at m on kn ew th e fir earm was pr es en t in th e ve hi cl e an d in te nd ed to

ex erci se do m in io n and co nt ro l o ve r th e fi rear m s [s ic ] ei th er d ire ct ly or
in di rect ly.

Th e di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to gi ve th is in st ru ct io n be cau se ot he r in st ru ct io n s
ad eq ua te ly con ve y ed th e su bs ta nc e o f th e p ro po se d i ns tru ct io n.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of de fen da nt ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n fo r
ab us e of di sc ret io n . . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Ir on i , 5 25 F.3 d 68 3, 68 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 51 8 F.3 d 98 9, 99 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). W e wil l affi rm

so lo ng as th e jury in st ru c t i o n s g i ve n by t he di st ric t co ur t, “ ta ke n as a who le , f ai rly

an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury.” Uni te d St at es v. Eng el man n , 72 0

F.3 d 10 05

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. W hi te hi ll

, 53 2 F.3 d 74 6,

75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). “ Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed to a th eo ry of de fen se in st ru ct io n if it

is ti m el y req ue st ed

, is su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce, an d is a co r r e c t s t a t e ment of th e

la w . . . .” Id

. (qu ot in g W hi te hi ll , 53 2 F .3d at 7 52 ).

Howev er, a de fen da nt is no t en ti tl ed to a pa rti cu la rly wor de d in st ru ct io n whe re th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n by th e tri al jud ge ad eq ua te ly an d co rrec tl y

co ve r th e su bs ta nc e of th e req ue st ed in st ru ct i o n. A m ere pr es en ce in st ru ct io n is un ne ces sa ry whe re it wou ld ha ve du pl ic at ed th e in st ru ct io ns ou tl in in g th e e l e m en ts of th e of fen se , th e de fin it io n of

po ss es si on , and th e b ur de n o f pr oo f.

Uni te d St at es v. Ca nt re ll

, 53 0 F.3 d 68 4, 69 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on an d

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The di st ric t co ur t d id no t abu se it s d is cret io n b ecau se th e in st ru ct io ns it ga ve
ad eq ua te ly an d co rrec tl y co nv ey ed th e su bs ta nc e of Ch at m on ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n.

Our de ci si on in Ca nt re ll is di sp os it iv e. In th at cas e , t h e d e f e nd an t— who was al so

-6

-ch arg ed un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )—r eq ue st ed a “ m ere p res en ce” i ns tru ct io n ne arl y

i de nt ic al to th e on e req ue st ed by Ch at m on

. Id

. The jury in st ru ct io ns g i v e n b y t h e
di st ric t co ur t in Ca nt re ll “ req ui red th e jury to fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t Can tre ll

‘kno win gl y

po ss es se d’” a firear m

. Id

. The di st ric t cou rt als o i ns tru ct ed th e jury on

th e m ean in g of po ss es si on us in g Eig ht h Ci rcu it Mo de l Cri m in al Jur y In st ru ct io n 8.0 2.

Id

. at 69 3. W e he ld th at th e “ ‘m ere pr es en ce’ in st ru ct io n was un ne ces sa ry in

Can tre ll ’s cas e b e c a u se it ‘w ou ld ha ve du pl ic at ed th e in st ru ct io ns ou tl in in g th e
el em en ts of th e of

fen se , th e de fin it io n of po ss es si on , an d th e bu rd en of pr oo f.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Se rr an o- Lo pe z , 36 6 F.3 d 62 8, 63 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). In th is

cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t si m il arl y in st ru ct ed th e jury th at

, in or de r to co nv ic t Ch at m on , it m us t fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm

. And

it s in st ru ct io n de fin in g “ po ss es si on ” is id en ti cal to th at gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t in

Ca n t r e l l

. Bec au se th is cas e is no t m at eri al ly di st in gu is ha bl e fro m Ca nt re ll

, we

li ke wis e c o n c l ud e th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by d ecl in in g to gi ve Ch at m on ’s pro po se d “ m ere p res en ce” i ns tru ct io n.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m Ch at m on ’s con vi ct io n.

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

-7

-