Opinion ID: 167862
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: M r. Bell’s claims of insufficient evidence have no merit. W e review these claim s de novo, “view ing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be draw n -8- therefrom in the light most favorable to the government,” and reversing the conviction “only if no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Toles, 297 F.3d 959, 968 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e do not question the jury’s credibility determinations or its conclusions about the weight of the evidence.” United States v. Norman, 388 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Both guilty verdicts were for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). “[I]n order to prove a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of a felony; (2) the defendant thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm or amm unition; and (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce.” Id. For each verdict M r. Bell challenges only the second element. “‘Possession’ can be either actual or constructive under § 922(g)(1). Constructive possession occurs when a person knowingly holds ownership, dominion or control over the object and premises where it is found.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) As to Count 1, M r. Bell contends that there was insufficient evidence to connect him to the firearms that were found inside the trailer home. But several documents found in the trailer indicated his dominion over the premises. And Ricky Ash and Dave Hammons testified that M r. Bell lived there, always had a -9- firearm in his possession, and often traded drugs for firearms at that location. Speaking of the master bedroom where the firearms were found, M r. Hammons testified that M r. Bell “hardly ever let anybody in there by their self,” because there was “[u]sually money in there or dope.” R. Vol. 4 at 258. Both M r. Ash and M r. Hammons also testified that M r. Bell kept the home padlocked when no one was there, and that neither had a key; and M r. Hammons testified that M r. Bell was there immediately before the police arrived on June 22. This evidence was more than sufficient to convict M r. Bell of possessing the firearms found in the home. The evidence was also sufficient on Count 2. A firearm was found in a bag on the bench seat next to where M r. Bell had been sitting. He denied ownership of the contents of the bag, saying that he had just purchased the truck. But the jury could easily have found his story improbable. There was no one else in the truck, and M r. Bell presented the officers with a fake name and driver’s license. Further, there was testimony that M r. Bell alw ays carried a firearm.