Opinion ID: 3027556
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accept[s] as established all reasonable -6- inferences supporting the verdict. United States v. Davis, 154 F.3d 772, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Frayer, 9 F.3d 1367, 1371 (8th Cir. 1993). Jones challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for making a false statement in acquiring a firearm.5 Jones argues that to be convicted he must have known that the statement he made was false or fictitious. The alleged false statement made by Jones was his response of no to the questions on Form 4473 concerning prior felony convictions. Specifically, Form 4473 asked, Have you been convicted in any court of a crime for which a judge could have imprisoned you for more than a year, even if the judge actually gave you a shorter sentence? He answered no to a similar question on the state permit application. There was sufficient evidence presented to the jury that it could infer Jones's knowledge that his answer to that question was false. Appellant used the name Jones on the Form 4473 (and the permit application) even though all of his previous convictions were under the name Lee. Further, Jones admitted at trial that he had told the pawn shop owner that he had served time in Tennessee. He also admitted during trial that he knew he had been convicted of multiple felonies. Jones's knowledge 5 It does not appear that Jones is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the felony possession convictions. However, in the event Jones intended to challenge those convictions, the Court has no difficulty finding that the government proffered sufficient evidence that the jury could find appellant guilty on both counts. The only argument Jones makes concerning the sufficiency of the evidence is that he did not have knowledge of his prior felony convictions. The government need not prove knowledge, but only the fact of a prior felony conviction. United States v. Kind, 194 F.3d 900, 906 (8th Cir. 1999) (it is well settled in this circuit that the government need only prove defendant's status as a convicted felon and knowing possession of the firearm), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1180 (2000). There was ample evidence presented to the jury of appellant's prior felony convictions. -7- of his prior felony convictions was also corroborated by the testimony of Officer White, who testified at trial to statements Jones made to him after the December 21, 1999 arrest. Given this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Jones knew his answer to the question on the Form 4473 regarding prior felony convictions was false. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict on all counts.