United States v. William Andrews, No. 18-3273 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior felony involving a firearm in this felon-in-possession prosecution, as evidence defendant had previously possessed a gun was relevant to show knowledge, and the court gave a limiting instruction to diminish the danger of any unfair prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3273 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. William Andrews Defendant – Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: June 28, 2019 Filed: July 3, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury convicted William Andrews of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Andrews’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and questions the district court’s 1 decision to admit evidence that Andrews had previously been convicted of a felony involving a firearm. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. See United States v. Rembert, 851 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a court’s admission of prior-bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) will be reversed “only when such evidence clearly ha[d] no bearing on the issues in the case and was introduced solely to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit criminal acts” (citation omitted)). Evidence that Andrews had previously possessed a gun was relevant to show that he knowingly possessed the gun recovered in this case. See United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir. 2011). And the court’s limiting instruction to the jury helped “diminish[] the danger of any unfair prejudice arising from [its] admission.” Id. at 488 (citation omitted). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-
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.
