United States v. Benamor, No. 17-50308 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion affirming a conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); denied a petition for panel rehearing; and denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
The panel held that the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury that, to convict, they had to find that defendant knew that his firearm was manufactured after 1898. In this case, defendant did not dispute the government's evidence that his gun could not have been manufactured before 1915, and he offered no evidence that he reasonably believed that the gun was manufactured before 1898. Therefore, the panel held that defendant failed to meet his burden of production to put the antique firearm affirmative defense at issue, and his sufficiency of the evidence argument failed as well. The panel also held that, at a minimum, the prior convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and being a felon in possession of ammunition proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had the knowledge required by Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and that any error in not instructing the jury to make such a finding did not affect defendant's substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. Finally, the confrontation clause error was harmless.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel filed an amended opinion affirming a conviction for knowingly possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); denied a petition for panel rehearing; and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc. The defendant argued that because firearms manufactured in or before 1898 do not qualify as “firearms” under § 922, the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that, to convict, they had to find that the defendant knew that his firearm was manufactured after 1898. The panel rejected that argument. The panel explained that United States v. Aguilera-Rios, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2014) (concerning the categorical approach), does not override the line of cases holding that a firearm’s antique status is an affirmative defense in a criminal prosecution; and that Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (concerning the National Firearms Act), does not help the defendant. The panel held that the defendant failed to meet his burden of production to put the “antique firearm” affirmative defense at issue, and rejected the defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument that rested on the same contention. The panel reviewed for plain error the defendant’s argument that, in light of Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the evidence was insufficient to sustain his UNITED STATES V. BENAMOR 3 conviction because the government failed to prove that he knew he was a felon. The panel held that the defendant’s stipulation at trial – that, on the date when he was arrested in this case for possession of a shotgun, he had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year – was binding, and relieved the government of the burden to prove the defendant’s status as a felon. The panel held that, assuming the stipulation does not end the discussion, there was no plain error. The panel explained that the absence of an instruction requiring the jury to find that the defendant knew he was a felon was clear error under Rehaif, but that there is no probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. The panel wrote that, at a minimum, the prior convictions proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the knowledge required by Rehaif and any error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial. The panel held that the admission of an ATF agent’s testimony that his interview with the defendant's landlord confirmed the agent’s decision to arrest the defendant for the firearm and ammunition violated the Confrontation Clause, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 4 UNITED STATES V. BENAMOR
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 6, 2019.
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.