Opinion ID: 4529010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Trial Evidence

Text: A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) requires the government to prove, inter alia, that the defendant knowingly possessed or received a firearm. The defendant’s mere presence in the same location as a weapon does not establish possession, United States v. Rios, 856 F.2d 493, 496 (2d Cir. 1988), but it is sufficient for the government to prove that a defendant had the “power and [] intention . . . to exercise dominion and control” over it, United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2008). On appeal, Hayes argues that the government presented insufficient evidence at trial to prove that he had possession of the shotgun found in the bedroom closet. He contends 2 that, “[a]t best, the evidence suggest[s] that [he] was a regular visitor to the upper apartment at 1318 Walnut [Avenue] and that he had some authority to receive visitors there and even barbecue on the outdoor porch,” both of which NFPD officers had observed him doing. Appellant’s Br. 9– 10. For the following reasons, we disagree. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Lyle, 919 F.3d 716, 737 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 846 (2020). In so doing, we view the evidence “in a light that is most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the government.” United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 104 (2d Cir. 2011)). We must uphold the jury’s verdict “if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508, 515 (2d Cir. 2015). The verdict “may be based on circumstantial evidence,” and “the Government is not required to preclude every reasonable hypothesis which is consistent with innocence.” United States v. Ogando, 547 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Hayes had dominion and control over the shotgun. First, the jury heard testimony that at each of the five times police surveilled the premises, Hayes was present and acting in a manner consistent with the exercise of dominion and control of the apartment, including by allowing visitors to enter and barbecuing on the apartment’s deck. It heard further evidence that confidential informants purchased marijuana from Hayes at the apartment, a narrative corroborated by the presence of marijuana and unused plastic bags hidden there. Second, police testified that when an officer accidentally discharged his weapon while clearing the apartment, Hayes repeatedly asked, “Who shot a shot in my house?” Trial Tr. 115, 124, 131–32. Third, when Hayes was booked and asked 3 for his address by law enforcement, he provided the address where police found the shotgun. Fourth, a search of the apartment revealed a New York State benefits card and a letter concerning child support payments, both of which were addressed to Hayes. This evidence was sufficient to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hayes had dominion and control over the entire apartment and the items inside it. He identified the residence as his house, both at the time of the search and when he was later asked for his address. He was seen at the apartment on numerous occasions and kept government documents and credentials—items one would not ordinarily leave in a place where one does not exercise dominion and control—on the premises. And the evidence that Hayes dealt marijuana from the residence suggested a motive for him to keep a weapon near the front door, where the shotgun was found. See United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Hernandez, 780 F.2d 113, 116– 17 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).