United States v. Cross, No. 17-1982 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and 120 month sentence of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home where officers had a reasonable belief that defendant's girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to their entry into the house with her, and that entry to accompany the girlfriend while she collected her belongings to move elsewhere was directly related to the entry that defendant's grandmother authorized in her initial call for assistance; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a jail recording of a telephone conversation between defendant and his girlfriend; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the jail calls and grand jury testimony in finding that defendant was a habitual domestic abuser with a history of displaying weapons; the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant was a habitual domestic abuser who had brandished firearms on multiple occasions; and the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Wollman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The police officers reasonably believed defendant's girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to their entry in the house with her while she gathered her belongings and that their entry with the girlfriend was directly related to the entry defendant's grandmother authorized when she called the police for assistance with a domestic dispute between defendant and his girlfriend; the gun found while the girlfriend was gathering her effects was admissible; the district court did not err in admitting a recording of a jailhouse call between defendant and his girlfriend as its probative value (defendant's attempt to get her to claim ownership) outweighed any possible prejudice; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; no error in considering jailhouse calls and grand jury testimony at the sentencing proceeding in determining defendant was a habitual domestic abuser with a history of displaying weapons; no error in finding defendant was such an abuser; 120-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable given the aggravating factors in the case, including defendant's history of violence and domestic abuse.
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.