US v. Randolph McNeill, No. 10-4126 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4126 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RANDOLPH LEE MCNEILL, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00080-BO-1) Submitted: March 18, 2011 Decided: March 24, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randolph Lee McNeill appeals his conviction after a jury trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). On appeal, McNeill asserts failing that the district court erred in to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of justification and in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm. A defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor. United States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). A district court s refusal to instruct the jury on such a defense presents a question of law that we review de novo. Id. This court has also recognized that if an affirmative defense consists of several elements and testimony supporting one element is insufficient to sustain it even if burdened defense. 1994) believed, with the testimony trial court supporting and other jury need elements not of be the United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 621 (4th Cir. (quoting (1980)). Our district court United States review of correctly v. the Bailey, record concluded 444 U.S. convinces that the 394, 416 that the evidence was us insufficient to merit instructing the jury on the justification 2 defense. See United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir. 1989). Additionally, we review de novo the district court s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 2008). United We will uphold the jury s verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial reasonable finder of fact evidence could is accept evidence as that adequate a and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing for substantial evidence, this court considers both circumstantial and direct evidence and allows the government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). To convict McNeill of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the Government was required to prove that (1) he was previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) he knowingly possessed, transported, or received a firearm; and (3) the possession was in or affecting commerce, because foreign commerce. the firearm had traveled in interstate or See United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). 3 At trial, McNeill stipulated that he previously had been convicted of a felony, and he does not dispute on appeal that he knowingly possessed a Hi-Point Model 995 nine-millimeter rifle. Further, our review of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Government convinces finding us that that the substantial rifle evidence traveled in supports interstate the jury s commerce. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying McNeill s Rule 29 motions. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
