Opinion ID: 199997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Special Relevance

Text: 40 The disputed evidence easily clears the relevancy hurdle. Section 922(g)(1) requires the government to prove, inter alia, that the defendant possessed a firearm and did so knowingly. United States v. Lanoue, 137 F.3d 656, 661 (1st Cir.1998). To establish knowing possession under § 922(g)(1), the government must demonstrate actual or constructive possession of the firearm. See United States v. Wight, 968 F.2d 1393, 1397-98 (1st Cir.1992). `Constructive' possession is commonly defined as the power and intention to exercise control, or dominion and control, over an object not in one's `actual' possession. United States v. Zavala Maldonado, 23 F.3d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1994). 41 In his defense, Smith disavowed any control over the revolver or the Wales Street apartment where that gun was found, submitting testimony from Sawyer to that effect. In light of this defense, evidence of Smith's drug dealing at the apartment was highly relevant to the issues disputed at trial because that evidence demonstrates Smith's control over the Wales Street apartment where the gun was found, and the joint drug dealing efforts of Smith and Moore help explain why Moore was in a position to see the gun. Furthermore, Smith's drug dealing provides a compelling motive for possessing the gun, namely, to protect his drugs and drug money. Several of our sister circuits have approved the admission of evidence of a defendant's drug activities in a firearms possession case to show a motive or knowing possession of the firearm. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1031-33 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that evidence of defendant's drug dealing was admissible to prove knowing possession of firearms); 8 United States v. Butcher, 926 F.2d 811, 816 (9th Cir.1991) ([E]vidence of narcotics trafficking may be properly admitted to show knowing possession of a weapon.); United States v. Fuller, 887 F.2d 144, 147 (8th Cir.1989) (holding that, given the close and well-known connection between firearms and drugs, drug-related evidence was admissible to show motive to possess firearm); United States v. Simon, 767 F.2d 524, 527 (8th Cir.1985) (finding that evidence that defendant engaged in drug packaging at apartment where gun was found was probative of his possession of that gun, because of known correlation between drug dealing and weapons). 42 Smith argues that our decision in United States v. Currier, 821 F.2d 52 (1st Cir.1987), demonstrates our unwillingness to admit evidence of narcotics to prove gun possession. That is not so. In Currier, the defendant did not argue that the gun he was charged with possessing belonged to someone else in the apartment. See id. at 56 n. 6. Thus, the narcotics evidence was only marginally relevant on the issue of [gun] possession. Id. Here, on the other hand, Smith argued that the gun did not belong to him; he put on evidence that Sawyer owned the gun. As such, evidence of drug dealing, for reasons discussed supra, was relevant to the contested issue of knowing possession.