Court Opinion

ID: 9467495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:50:16.617778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:22.637514
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with Judge Heaney’s opinion with one exception. I do not agree that the allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor could reasonably have affected the jury verdict of guilty. I would therefore affirm on both counts.
In his opinion Judge Heaney relies on two Eighth Circuit cases: United States v. Bell, 573 F.2d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 1978), and United States v. King, 616 F.2d 1034, 1040 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 2950, 64 L.Ed.2d 829 (1980). Interestingly enough in both cases similar remarks were held to be nonprejudicial.
In Bell, supra, the remarks were made in testimony by a government agent over objection of the defense attorney. Concededly the evidence was stronger against Bell than it was in this case against Norton. However, in my opinion, the evidence was sufficiently strong against Norton, as hereinafter set forth, to justify a determination that the remarks were nonprejudicial and could not reasonably have affected the jury verdict. In King, supra, the remarks expressed a personal belief by the prosecutor that King was guilty but were held to be nonprejudicial in the face of strong evidence. In United States v. Stevens, 509 F.2d 683, 686 n.1(f) (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 989, 95 S.Ct. 1993, 44 L.Ed.2d 479 (1975), not cited by the majority, Chief Judge Lay summarily dismissed a similar claim by Stevens in footnote 1(f), as follows:
(f) The government attorney used prejudicial comments in his closing argument. The comments were objected to and the court sustained the objections and instructed the jury to disregard them. The comments were (1) that Miss White, the defendant’s witness, was the defendant’s girlfriend, and (2) that sawed-off shotguns could be classified with “machine guns, grenades, and bazookas.” The comments do not constitute such prejudice that a jury would be likely to be unduly influenced by them. No motion for mistrial was made and the court’s charge under the circumstances was all that was required.
In this case the conviction should not be reversed for two reasons: First, the comments which were made “do not constitute such prejudice that a jury would be likely to be unduly influenced by them.” Id. In my opinion, the remarks which were made were relatively harmless and would not influence in any way the determination by the jury of whether Norton had possession of the sawed-off shotgun. Some members of the jury were most likely already familiar with the reason for cutting off the barrel.
As in Stevens, no motion for mistrial was made and the court specifically charged the *431jury that “you need not concern yourself as jurors with the reason for this particular statute.” The court then read the statute to them. The court also emphasized at great length the importance of the possession issue. I am satisfied that the jury knew that possession was the only issue to be decided and that the purpose of the statute had no bearing on its determination of that issue.
The second reason I believe the error, if any, was nonprejudicial is that the evidence of possession of the gun by Norton, though partially circumstantial, was very convincing. The government established these facts:
1. The gun was' found pursuant to a valid search warrant in Norton’s room. No other person occupied his room.
2. Norton had admitted owning a shotgun to witness Mark Farnham after Farnham asked if he (Norton) wasn’t afraid to leave money around the apartment.
3. Witness Sorenson testified that he had earlier seen the sawed-off shotgun in Norton’s bedroom. He later conceded he had seen only the top portion of the shotgun when it was resting back of a bed, but he identified it as the same gun.
In short, I agree with the district judge when he stated in his post-conviction order of July 3, 1980, as follows: “The court is satisfied that a fair trial was had by the defendant, and that neither the interests of justice nor claimed prejudicial misconduct justify the granting of a new trial.” The result reached by the majority in this case is, in my opinion, erroneous and in clear contradiction to the result reached by Chief Judge Lay in United States v. Stevens, supra.