Opinion ID: 166063
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count I: Possession of a firearm by a felon

Text: In order to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the Government must show: (1) the defendant was convicted of a felony; (2) the defendant thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce. United States v. Capps, 77 F.3d 350, 352 (10th Cir. 1996). On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the Government’s ability to prove the first and third prongs of the offense; rather, Defendant argues that the Government could not prove he had possession of the firearms recovered during the search. We disagree. The record clearly indicates that Defendant admitted to police officers that (1) the items found under the mattress were firearms; and (2) the firearms belonged to Defendant. And while Defendant was not physically holding the firearms when he was apprehended, he constructively possessed the guns for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d 545, 549 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that constructive possession is sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). A person constructively possesses a firearm when he has “ownership, dominion or control” over the object and the -5- premises where it is found. Id. Here, the firearms were found hidden under a mattress in the very same room where Defendant was apprehended. This fact, plus Defendant’s own admission that firearms belonged to him, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find this defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. B. Count II: Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute In order to meet its burden of proof under this count of the indictment, the Government must show: (1) that Defendant knowingly possessed marijuana; and (2) that he possessed the marijuana with the specific intent to distribute it. See United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1440 (10th Cir. 1997). As with the felonin-possession charge, Defendant only challenges the Government’s ability to prove the possession prong of the offense; he concedes that it would be reasonable for the jury to infer an intent to distribute if possession were indeed shown. Defendant’s main contention is that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the black bag found in the basement of the residence, in which the majority of the marijuana (some 15 pounds) was found. In support of this argument, Defendant points to the fact that there was no physical evidence linking him to the bag, nor was there any documentary evidence indicating that he actually resided at 6025 Monaco Street. Defendant also points out inconsistencies in the -6- testimony relating to his confession and other factors regarding his interview with police which he argues could cast some doubt on the reliability of that confession. But Defendant’s points are better suited for a summation to a jury then they are for consideration by this court on appeal. It is exclusively the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and the conclusions to be reached. United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2000). While Defendant points to the strongest evidentiary points in favor of an acquittal, the record reveals ample evidence to support a conviction. That the jury chose to believe one type of evidence over the other is a decision within its sole decision and not subject to review by this court. See id. at 1289. With regard to the marijuana found in the basement, the most compelling piece of evidence is Defendant’s own admission that the bag in which the marijuana was found belonged to him. Furthermore, Defendant was the only adult found in the house during the raid and was found in a room containing items such as plastic bags and a digital scale—items used for measuring and packaging drugs. Finally, Defendant admitted during his interview that “we” sell marijuana, typically in amounts sold for $20. These pieces of evidence lend ample support to a conclusion that the drugs discovered in the basement were in the constructive possession of Defendant. See -7- United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that constructive possession, which is sufficient to support a conviction under 21 U.S.C. §841, occurs when a person knowingly has ownership, dominion or control over the narcotics and the premises where the narcotics are found.) A jury could reasonably infer that Defendant took marijuana from the bag in the basement to his bedroom, packaged individual portions using the equipment found there, and then sold the drugs to the public. Thus, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction under this charge of the indictment. C. Count III: Possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime Defendant argues that even if the Government could prove that Defendant possessed the firearms seized during the search of the residence, the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that the firearms were possessed “in furtherance” of a drug crime, as is required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Aplt. Br. at 19.) We have recognized several factors helpful in analyzing whether a firearm was possessed in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, including “the type of drug activity being conducted, the accessibility of the firearm, the type of firearm, the legal status of the firearm, whether the firearm is loaded, the proximity of the firearm to the drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances under which the firearm is found.” United States v. Basham, 268 F.3d 1199, 1208 (10th Cir. -8- 2001). Although “mere possession of a firearm in proximity to drugs” does not require a finding that a weapon was possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking, it could be considered by the jury along with other circumstantial evidence to determine whether the defendant intended to possess the weapon “in furtherance of” drug trafficking. Basham, 268 F.3d at 1208. Here, it is compelling that the firearms were found in very close proximity to 321 grams of marijuana. In addition, the area in question contained a digital scale and plastic bags used for measuring and packaging drugs. Finally, the evidence reveals that the firearms were hidden under a mattress and easily accessible to Defendant. These facts provide ample evidence upon which the jury could have rested its verdict.