Opinion ID: 2790067
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: evidence of subjective intent

Text: On appeal, Tomkins first argues that, in barring his testimony that the devices were hoaxes, the district court applied Johnson in an overly broad way that unfairly prejudiced his defense. He emphasizes that the government’s witnesses were permitted to testify about how his devices 1The government ultimately dropped one of the ten counts (Count 7) for mailing threatening communications under § 876(b). 10 No. 13-2234 were designed and intended to function, and contends that this uneven treatment violates principles of due process. The definition of “destructive device,” which is essentially identical in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4) and 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f), includes “any explosive … bomb,” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(A)(i); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)(1)(A), and “any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device … and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled,” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(C); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)(3). Based on this language, we held in Johnson that the analysis whether a certain apparatus is a “destructive device” must look first at the objective design of the device: If the objective design of the device or compo- nent parts indicates that the object may only be used as a weapon, i.e., for no legitimate social or commercial purpose, then the inquiry is at an end and subjective intent is not relevant. However, if the objective design inquiry is not dispositive because the assembled device or unassembled parts may form an object with both a legitimate and an illegitimate use, then subjective intent is an appropriate considera- tion in determining whether the device or parts at issue constitute a destructive device …. 152 F.3d at 628. We then applied this analysis to uphold exclusion of evidence that Johnson intended to make hoax devices. Id. As opposed to a device like a firecracker, we explained, Johnson’s devices had “all of the properties of a destructive device, including shrapnel,” indicating “that they were useful only as weapons.” Id. at 627–28; see also United No. 13-2234 11 States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 914 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If the objective design of the device indicates that the object serves no legitimate social or commercial purpose, subjective intent is not relevant to the analysis.”). Later, in Fleischli, we approved a jury instruction following the Johnson analysis but noted that it still allowed the defendant “to proceed with his defense that the objects were actually fireworks, not destructive devices.” 305 F.3d at 656–57. This case is on all fours with Johnson. Unlike in Fleischli, Tomkins did not seek to present evidence that his devices were intended for a benign purpose; rather, he sought to present the same “hoax” defense rejected in Johnson. Additionally, as in Johnson, the lead shot in the devices shows that they were not useful for any legitimate purpose other than use as a weapon. Tomkins argues that the individual components of his devices had legitimate social purposes, but this argument is undermined by the “combination of parts” language in the relevant statutes. See Saunders, 166 F.3d at 914–15 (upholding “destructive device” conviction when detective testified that “all of the components necessary to make the device explode were present in the device”); United States v. Copus, 93 F.3d 269, 273 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding “destructive device” conviction for homemade apparatus made of sealed metal casing containing explosive powder and fuse). At least two circuits have expressly adopted the same approach to evidence of subjective intent in this context as we did in Johnson. See United States v. Urban, 140 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that intent is irrelevant when it is clear that components, when combined, would create destructive device); United States v. Posnjak, 457 F.2d 1110, 1119 12 No. 13-2234 (2d Cir. 1972) (same); see also United States v. Lussier, 128 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that “no auxiliary evidence concerning [defendant]’s intent to use [his devices] as weapons was required” when “their nature and characteristics convincingly demonstrated that they were designed as weapons”). Tomkins does not point to any circuit that disagrees. Tomkins seeks to distinguish Johnson on the grounds that, unlike here, it did not involve a statutory minimum prison sentence that hinged on the definition of “destructive device.” The minimum is critical, Tomkins argues, because under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013), “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury.” See United States v. Zuniga, 767 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1018 (2015). Tomkins thus argues that the court “usurped the jury’s role in declaring the devices firearms and destructive devices as a matter of law.” He contends that, as part of the jury instructions, the jury should have been required to specifically find that his devices were “destructive devices” versus some other type of firearm. Cf. United States v. Jones, 763 F.3d 777, 817 (7th Cir. 2014) (finding Alleyne error when jury did not make specific finding on drug quantities that increased minimum), vacated on other grounds by United States v. Drake, 774 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2014). But a specific jury instruction was not necessary here because the instructions made clear that, to find Tomkins guilty, the jurors needed to conclude that the device he constructed was a destructive device. Not only did the instructions give no other definition of “firearm,” they also advised the jury that the charge for Count 13 was “knowingly using No. 13-2234 13 and carrying a destructive device during and in relation to, and possession of a destructive device in furtherance of, a crime of violence” (emphasis added). Additionally, the instructions for the two counts of illegally possessing a firearm directed that Tomkins, to be guilty, must have known “that the firearm possessed the characteristics that qualified it as a destructive device.” Finally, a copy of the indictment provided to the jury lists the charge as possession of “a firearm, namely, a destructive device as defined at Title 18, United States Code, Sections 921(a)(4)” (emphasis added). Thus, even without a specific jury finding, in finding Tomkins guilty, we are convinced that the jury necessarily found that his devices constituted destructive devices. Tomkins also argues that Johnson was wrongfully decided “because of the impact of the exclusion of state of mind evidence.” He emphasizes that, after we decided Johnson, the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 493 (2000), recognized that a “defendant’s intent in committing a crime is perhaps as close as one might hope to come to a core criminal offense ‘element.’” But Apprendi addressed a statute that on its face required examination of the defendant’s state of mind. Id. at 492–93. In contrast, as discussed in Johnson, 152 F.3d at 627–28, the definition of “destructive device” in the statutes at issue here only requires examination of a defendant’s mental state in certain circumstances. Ignoring the second subpart of the definition, which is irrelevant to this case, the statutes establish three separate ways in which a device may be a destructive device: if it is (1) an explosive, like a bomb, (2) a combination of parts designed for use in converting a device into a destructive device, or (3) a combination of parts intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device. As a result of the district court’s ruling 14 No. 13-2234 that Tomkins’s intent was irrelevant because his device was a “weapon as a matter of law,” the last definition was off the table. For that reason, Apprendi does not undermine the jury’s verdict. That being said, once the district court decided that Tomkins’s subjective intent was irrelevant to the jury’s analysis, the court should not have asked the jury to determine whether he “intended” to create a bomb. At least one district court, citing Johnson and Saunders, has addressed this situation and concluded that it constitutes error not to drop the term “intended” from the “combination of parts” provision when it is clear that the device at issue does not have any legitimate or socially beneficial purpose. United States v. Sheehan, No. 13-cr-0186, 2014 WL 3490323, at –22 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2014) (holding that the error was ultimately harmless). We agree. There are some situations where it is appropriate to provide the jury with alternative definitions of “destructive device,” as recognized in Johnson, which held that the district court “acted well within its discretion” by instructing the jury on a theory of liability under both subsections 1 and 3 of § 5845(f). 152 F.3d at 628. But when, as here, a defendant is excluded from presenting evidence of subjective intent, courts should refrain from issuing a “intended for use” jury instruction, particularly when a “designed for use” instruction will suffice. We agree with the government, however, that any error with the jury instructions’ definition of “destructive device” was harmless because there was ample evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the devices were destructive devices. Tomkins argues that the errors here were structural in nature and thus are not subject to harmless error review, No. 13-2234 15 relying for support on Frost v. Van Boening, 757 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2014). But the Supreme Court recently reversed that decision, explaining that harmless error review is only inapplicable to the rare type of error that infects the entire trial process and renders the trial fundamentally unfair. Glebe v. Frost, 135 S. Ct. 429, 430–31 (2014); see Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999) (“[W]e have recognized a limited class of fundamental constitutional errors that defy analysis by ‘harmless error’ standards.”) (internal quotations omitted). We are not convinced that the district court’s error in not removing the term “intended” from the jury instructions’ definition of destructive device rendered Tomkins’s trial fundamentally unfair. Moreover, in light of the unanimous testimony that Tomkins’s device contained the components of an explosive bomb, we are persuaded that the error did not affect the ultimate outcome of trial.