Court Opinion

ID: 9940442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 16:01:26.071597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:51.871271
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                           ___________________________

                                   No. 23-1781
                           ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                               Christopher Barefield

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                   ____________

                          Submitted: December 11, 2023
                            Filed: February 14, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                                   ____________

PER CURIAM.

       A jury convicted Christopher Barefield for being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him to
88 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Barefield
appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. “We review

      1
       The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” United States v. Spight, 817
F.3d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

       At trial, the government presented photos, officer testimony, and dash camera
video as evidence. Specifically, an investigator testified that he felt a firearm in
Barefield’s pocket while conducting a routine pat-down. As the investigator tried to
control Barefield and hold onto the firearm through an outer layer of clothing,
Barefield fled. A chase ensued. The investigator testified that during the chase,
Barefield took the firearm out of his pocket and had it in his hand. Barefield jumped
multiple fences and crossed an interstate exit ramp. The investigator followed and
eventually was able to catch up to Barefield. By the time of Barefield’s arrest, the
investigator had injured himself, and Barefield no longer had the gun. The
investigator shared the route of the chase with two colleagues who retraced the path
and were able to find the gun on the ground in a ditch.

       “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the facts in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and affirm if any rational [jury] could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover,
“[c]redibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact, and
are entitled to special deference.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). We
conclude that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict was
sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that Barefield was in possession of a
firearm.

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-