Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
In federal firearms prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant possessed a firearm, but also that the defendant knew at the time of possession that he was prohibited from doing so due to a prior felony conviction. This knowledge requirement was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Rehaif v. United States in 2019. A recent decision from a federal court sitting in Florida illustrates how courts evaluate cases tried before Rehaif and whether a missing jury instruction on the knowledge element requires reversal. If you are facing a firearm charge under federal law, a knowledgeable Tampa criminal defense attorney can assess whether your constitutional rights were upheld during trial and sentencing.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the defendant was convicted in federal court of possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The charge stemmed from an incident in which law enforcement officers found a loaded pistol during a search of the defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop. The defendant had previously been convicted of multiple felonies and was prohibited from possessing firearms.
Allegedly, the trial in this case occurred before the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that the government must prove the defendant knew of his felony status when he possessed the firearm. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm, but the instruction did not include the requirement that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon.
It is further reported that the defendant did not object to the jury instructions at trial. He was convicted and sentenced to 180 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which enhances penalties for defendants with three or more qualifying prior convictions. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the jury instructions under Rehaif, arguing that the omission constituted plain error warranting reversal.
Appellate Review and Legal Ruling
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court acknowledged that the jury instructions were erroneous under Rehaif because they failed to require proof that the defendant knew he had a prior felony conviction at the time of the offense. However, because the defendant did not raise the issue at trial, the appellate court reviewed for plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).
To prevail under plain error review, the defendant had to show that the instructional error was clear, affected his substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The court found that the error was clear in light of Rehaif, but concluded that it did not affect the outcome of the trial.
The court noted that the defendant had stipulated to his prior felony status and that the evidence showed he had served more than a year in prison on earlier convictions. Based on this record, the panel determined that no reasonable jury could have found that the defendant was unaware of his felon status. As a result, the court held that the omission of the Rehaif knowledge element did not warrant reversal under the plain error standard.
The court also affirmed the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement, finding that the defendant’s prior convictions qualified as “serious drug offenses” under federal law. The ACCA enhancement mandated a 15-year minimum sentence, which the district court imposed.
Talk to a Skilled Tampa Weapons Crime Defense Attorney
Federal firearms prosecutions involve complex statutory requirements, and courts continue to grapple with the implications of recent Supreme Court rulings. If you are facing federal weapons charges, the skilled Tampa gun crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can evaluate your case and help you explore all available defenses. Contact our Tampa office today at 813-228-7095 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.