Section 922(g) of Title 18 governs offenses for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Tyler Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog Before a defendant can be found guilty of an offense under Section 922(g), the government must prove three distinct elements:
-
The defendant was a convicted felon;
-
The defendant was in knowing possession of a firearm; and
-
The firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court's recent holding in Rehaif v. United States further requires the government to also prove that that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
We conclude that in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. We express no view, however, about what precisely the Government must prove to establish a defendant's knowledge of status in respect to other § 922(g)provisions not at issue here.
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019).
In the recent case of United States v. Feliciano, No. 22-11390, at *4 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court’s holding in Rehaif noting that to establish a violation of Section 922(g), the prosecution had to prove not only that the defendant was a convicted felon in knowing possession of a firearm, but also that he knew he was barred from possessing a firearm due to his felon status. The Feliciano case emphasizes the government's burden in proving both elements of knowledge in order to secure a conviction under Section 922(g).
Feliciano argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion at trial by admitting evidence of his 2015 felony conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See United States v. Feliciano, No. 22-11390, at *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023). The government offered the 2015 conviction under Rule of Evidence 404(b) as evidence “proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(2)” United States v. Feliciano, No. 22-11390, at *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023).
The admission of that 2015 prior felony conviction into evidence helped the government establish that Feliciano knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Further, a prior conviction in which the defendant possessed a gun provides a "logical connection between a convicted felon's knowing possession of a firearm at one time and his knowledge that a firearm is present at a subsequent time (or, put differently, that his possessionat the subsequent time is not mistaken or accidental)." Id. at 1281 (stating that a defendant's prior offenses that involved the knowing possession of a firearm "plainly bore" on the defendant's knowledge that the gun was present in the charged instance).
United States v. Feliciano, No. 22-11390, at *3-4 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023)
Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at trial when it admitted a prior felon in possession conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) The court properly determined that the evidence was sufficiently probative of Feliciano's knowing possession of a firearm, which was an issue at trial, and that its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice, particularly given the district court's limiting instructions. Further, we also conclude that even if the court should not have admitted the evidence, any error in this respect was harmless. The other evidence of Feliciano's refusal to pull over after an officer activated his blue lights, his attempt to outrun police vehicles in pursuit, his flight from the overturned vehicle, his post-arrest recorded statements while in jail, his trial testimony about a "driver" not observed by troopers, and his denial of driving the vehicle or knowing about the firearms inside all support his conviction independent of the 2015 conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
United States v. Feliciano, No. 22-11390, at *5 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2023).
This blog post was prepared with the assistance of ChatGPT-4 AI. Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. This blog is strictly for informational purposes only.
