United States v. White, Jr., No. 15-2027 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a stolen firearm. The court concluded that, while there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of possession of an unregistered firearm, there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen firearm where proof of scienter was not adequate. The court also found that, using the common-sense evaluation required by United States v. Barr, the Street Sweeper 12 gauge shotgun is quasi-suspect and defendant had no legitimate expectation that it was not subject to regulation. Therefore, the jury need not have found that defendant knew of the characteristics that bring it under the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act, Pub. L. 73-474, 48 Stat. 1236. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the jury instruction as proposed by defendant. However, when the characteristics of a weapon render it quasi-suspect, the government still must prove that defendant possessed the weapon and observed its characteristics. Because the adequacy of Instruction 16 was at least subject to reasonable dispute, there was no obvious error in the instruction. Finally, even if the district court erred in admitting evidence that officers were investigating defendant with respect to other criminal activity, the error was not clear or obvious. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, but the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm; a "Street Sweeper" is a quasi-suspect weapon such that defendant could not have legitimately expected it to be free from regulation, and the court did not err in overruling his objection to the jury instructions' failure to require a finding that defendant knew of the characteristics of the weapon which bring it under the coverage of the National Firearms Act; the government must prove, however, that defendant possessed the weapon and observed its characteristics, and the instruction given to the jury covered both of these points; no error in permitting the government to present evidence that law enforcement officers were investigating defendant for a series of violent offenses as the evidence explained officers' focus on defendant and the actions they took, such as seizing his trash.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 11, 2017.
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.