Opinion ID: 542884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The firearm counts

Text: 20 The jury returned guilty verdicts on two firearm counts. Specifically, the jury determined that Mr. Buggs had violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1), 6 which prohibits a convicted felon from possessing or receiving any firearm shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1), 7 which prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm in relation to a narcotics offense. For purposes of these violations, the term firearm means any weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(3). Mr. Buggs challenges the firearm convictions on the ground that the government failed to prove that the alleged pistol was capable of firing any projectile. Appellant's Br. at 8-9. He argues that Officer Jones and Mr. Perry testified only that they had seen what appeared to them to be a large pistol. It appeared to each of them to be a .357 magnum but neither was sure. Id. at 8 (emphasis in original). 21 At the outset, we cannot accept Mr. Buggs' claim that the government is required to prove that the gun was operable. See, e.g., United States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 580, 582 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1238, 108 S.Ct. 2908, 101 L.Ed.2d 940 (1988); 8 Parker v. United States, 801 F.2d 1382, 1383-85 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1070, 107 S.Ct. 964, 93 L.Ed.2d 1011 (1987); United States v. Harris, 792 F.2d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir.1986). 9 The statute does not require that the Government prove the gun was actually capable of firing. Rather, it is enough that the gun was 'designed to' fire. United States v. Polk, 808 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). 10 22 The government in this case offered testimony from a veteran officer that Mr. Buggs possessed a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum. Officer Jones testified that a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum, the same sidearm he carries, is a weapon that will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. Tr. at 123. Mr. Perry also testified that he saw the weapon and believed it was a .357 magnum. Such evidence was sufficient to satisfy the government's burden of proving that the gun was designed to fire. See United States v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983, 996 (11th Cir.1985) (government proved use of firearm where agent testified that he saw defendant remove a .38 caliber pistol from his waistband: Testimony by an experienced federal law enforcement officer familiar with handguns that the defendant carried a .38 caliber pistol certainly authorized the jury to find that the defendant possessed a firearm, defined [by Florida law] as a weapon 'designed to ... expel a projectile.' ), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1124, 106 S.Ct. 1646, 90 L.Ed.2d 190 (1986). 11 23 The fact that the gun was not produced at trial or that the witnesses did not have an opportunity to examine closely the weapon does not prevent conviction of a firearm offense. See Parker, 801 F.2d at 1383-85 (sufficient evidence supported jury verdict that defendant had used or carried a firearm where government did not introduce weapon or evidence that it had been fired, but two bank tellers testified that defendant had carried a gun); Harris, 792 F.2d at 867-68 (court affirmed section 924(c) conviction based on surveillance photograph and witness testimony that defendant had carried a gun); Rouco, 765 F.2d at 996 (proof that defendant used or carried a firearm was sufficient where DEA agent testified that defendant had carried a pistol); United States v. Liles, 432 F.2d 18, 19-20 (9th Cir.1970) 12 (evidence sufficient to prove that object possessed was firearm where gun was not produced but manager of sporting goods department briefly examined gun and identified it as common type of revolver). 24 It was for the trier of fact to weigh the evidence and determine whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that the defendant possessed a firearm. In returning guilty verdicts on the weapons charges, the jury was convinced that the object Mr. Buggs displayed on June 16, 1988 was in fact a firearm. The jury was entitled to find reliable the testimony of Officer Jones and William Perry that the object Mr. Buggs had was a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum. From that evidence, a rational jury could have reached the conclusion that the object was a gun and that guns are designed to expel projectiles. We therefore will not disturb the jury's verdict. See United States v. Hogan, 886 F.2d 1497, 1502 (7th Cir.1989).