United States v. Green-Bowman, No. 14-2826 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a firearm not registered to him. The court concluded that evidence about a 2011 handgun incident was relevant to prove defendant knew about the shotgun next to him in the car and intended to possess it, and it made an innocent explanation for his behavior less likely. Further, the differences in the two incidents defendant emphasizes do not make the evidence inadmissible nor do they undermine its probative value. The court concluded that the handgun incident was similar enough to the facts of this case for the evidence to be relevant to defendant's mental state, a material element the government needed to prove. Defendant failed to identify any unfair prejudice allegedly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Further, the government did not expressly argue that defendant was guilty because he was the sort of person who would be likely to have a gun, and the court declined to view its description of the 2011 handgun incident as an attempt to do so surreptitiously. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant possessed the shotgun; the government's innocuous question to a witness about whether he would repeat his grand jury testimony was not improper nor unfairly prejudicial; and the district court did not err by increasing his criminal history category by one level under USSG 4A1.3(a)(1) where calculations understated the seriousness of defendant's criminal history. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Bright and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. No error in admitting evidence concerning a 2011 firearm conviction as it was relevant to prove defendant knew about the weapon in this case and intended to possess it; the differences in the two incidents did not undermine the probative value of the 2011 incident and did not make the evidence inadmissible; government's comments regarding the 2011 incident in its closing argument were not an improper propensity argument; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm; government's decision to ask a witness an innocuous question to determine whether he was willing to repeat his grand jury testimony did not make the government's conduct improper; no error in imposing an upward departure under Guidelines Sec. 4A1.3(a)(1) for under-represented criminal history. Judge Bright, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.