Source: cases/18usc922/f3d-422-207-us-v-moye.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_422/0207_01/index.html
However, mere presence at the location where contraband is found is insufficient to establish possession.
The only evidence the Government presented to support constructive possession was that Moye was present in the same location from which the guns were stolen.
Because no evidence exists that Moye was ever in a position to exercise dominion and control over the weapons, we conclude that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moye was a felon in possession.
With two reasonable interpretations available to the jury, it was for the jury, not this court, to decide which version was more credible.
In this case, the jury was entitled to reach the reasonable and quite unremarkable conclusion that Moye possessed the firearms as they made their way from the store to Briggs’ person and the getaway car.
Moye does not challenge his status as a convicted felon.
It is implicit in a charge of aiding and abetting that the underlying crime was committed by someone other than the defendant.
The district court erred as a matter of law in giving the instruction on this count as it was a logical impossibility for the instruction to apply to Count I, felon in possession.
casedsl 1
case /f3d/422/0207-01
name United States v. Moye
cite 422 F.3d 207 (2005)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
date 2005-09-09
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_422/0207_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl sha1=989904b011c32206a1bb8e9a6f0bbe3d9f53fd2f chars=35922
law 18usc922 (g)(1)
role applied
posture criminal; jury conviction on Count I (felon in possession, 922(g)(1), with aiding and abetting) and Count II (possession of stolen firearms, 922(j)) after a gun-store burglary; Rule 29 motion denied; divided panel reverses both counts for insufficient evidence (one judge dissenting)
result claimant-lost
element possession : not-satisfied [no-evidence]
count Count I, defendant as principal
theory constructive possession (government did not allege actual possession)
scope superseded
opinion panel majority (reheard en banc; convictions affirmed, 454 F.3d 390, IR /f3d/454/0390-01 -- not yet annotated)
variant constructive/presence-at-scene-of-gun-store-burglary
fact @1532..1669 [supports] | Moye was seen by another officer crawling out of the doorway at Bart’s after Cooper took off. Moye ran but was caught a short time later.
fact @1421..1531 [cuts-against] | Thirteen firearms were found inside the vehicle. Briggs was later apprehended with two firearms in his pocket.
fact @1670..1794 [cuts-against absent] | No weapons were found in Moye’s possession and Moye’s fingerprints were not on the weapons recovered from Briggs and Cooper.
fact @6804..6890 [cuts-against absent] | The Government did not present testimony that Moye had been seen with any of the guns.
rule @5656..5751 [quoted] | that the defendant exercised, or had the power to exercise, dominion and control over the item.
rule @5857..5962 | However, mere presence at the location where contraband is found is insufficient to establish possession.
held @6506..6663 | The only evidence the Government presented to support constructive possession was that Moye was present in the same location from which the guns were stolen.
held @6891..7132 | Because no evidence exists that Moye was ever in a position to exercise dominion and control over the weapons, we conclude that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moye was a felon in possession.
gloss Panel majority: being caught crawling out of the burgled gun store, and fleeing, while the stolen guns were in the getaway car and on an accomplice, is "mere presence"; flight shows consciousness of guilt of the burglary, not of the federal possession offences. NOT GOOD LAW: see first misfit (reversed on rehearing en banc).
element possession : satisfied [proved]
scope dissent
count Count I, defendant as principal
theory possession inferred circumstantially: defendant as the inside man who removed the guns and passed them out
opinion dissent (Hamilton)
variant actual/inferred-handling-as-inside-man-in-gun-store-burglary
fact @25787..25989 [supports] | Officer Walters saw Moye crawling out of the store through the cubbyhole below the side door’s knob. This cubbyhole was the only one that was not cluttered with boxes and/or store equipment/merchandise.
fact @25606..25754 [supports] | The distance between the side-by-side doors and the store’s gun display cabinets, which ran perpendicular to the doors, is approximately three feet.
fact @24827..24920 [supports] | The car was found to contain thirteen firearms and two more were recovered on Briggs’ person.
fact @24921..25004 [cuts-against] | The fingerprints of Cooper, Briggs, and Moye were not found on any of the firearms.
rule @32609..32747 | With two reasonable interpretations available to the jury, it was for the jury, not this court, to decide which version was more credible.
held @33105..33308 | In this case, the jury was entitled to reach the reasonable and quite unremarkable conclusion that Moye possessed the firearms as they made their way from the store to Briggs’ person and the getaway car.
gloss The dissent would uphold sufficiency: one uncluttered 18-inch cubbyhole, guns three feet inside, a timed smash-and-grab at 5:30 a.m., and flight permit the inference that he took the guns from the cabinets and handed them out. It does not say whether that is actual or constructive possession ("actually or constructively possessed").
element status.g1 : satisfied [conceded]
party Moye
variant prior-felony/certified-record-of-conviction
fact @2212..2436 [supports] | The Government also introduced a Certified Record of Conviction Under Seal showing that Moye had previously been convicted of a felony handgun violation as well as a certificate of the non-restoration of Moye’s civil rights.
held @5142..5198 | Moye does not challenge his status as a convicted felon.
gloss He did challenge admission of the certified record and fingerprint comparison (authenticity/hearsay); rejected in a footnote as meritless (self-authenticating public record).
gloss CAVEAT: rests on one sentence noting the point was unchallenged, in a panel opinion that was later reheard en banc (see first misfit); a record of an uncontested fact of this case, not authority on the status element.
element status.g1 : not-reached
role background
scope procedural
party Briggs and Cooper (the putative principals)
count Count I, aiding-and-abetting theory (18 U.S.C. 2)
theory aiding and abetting a felon in possession requires that the person aided be a felon
variant prior-felony/principal-in-aiding-and-abetting-theory
fact @11552..11741 [cuts-against absent] | It is clear that no foundation in the evidence supported an aiding and abetting instruction as to this count because the Government introduced no evidence that Briggs or Cooper were felons.
fact @11434..11551 [cuts-against] | During oral argument, the AUSA conceded that giving the jury an aiding and abetting instruction on Count I was error.
rule @8952..9078 | It is implicit in a charge of aiding and abetting that the underlying crime was committed by someone other than the defendant.
held @11742..11921 | The district court erred as a matter of law in giving the instruction on this count as it was a logical impossibility for the instruction to apply to Count I, felon in possession.
gloss REAL RULING: jury-instruction error on the aiding-and-abetting route (18 U.S.C. 2) - the instruction had no evidentiary foundation because nothing showed the putative principals (Briggs, Cooper) were felons; the AUSA conceded the error; it could not be harmless once principal-liability evidence was held insufficient (the court adds "sufficient evidence did not exist as to aiding and abetting in Count I"). Not a holding on the status.g1 element of the charged defendant - Moye's own felon status is conceded (block above) - and the law file declares no id for accomplice liability; hence not-reached, role background, scope procedural. CAVEAT: part of the panel opinion that was reheard en banc (see first misfit).
element commerce-possession : not-reached
gloss An interstate-nexus expert testified that 14 of the 15 recovered guns affected interstate commerce; not contested or discussed on appeal.
misfit SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: this panel opinion was reheard en banc and the convictions were AFFIRMED, United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc), a separate IR record (/f3d/454/0390-01). The panel-majority possession block therefore carries `scope superseded` (the scope was widened in wave 2 to cover displacement by another record) and is not an instance; the en banc opinion should be annotated as its own .case file. The fact of supersession is annotator knowledge confirmed from the other record's opening, not from this record's pinned text.
misfit Count II is 18 U.S.C. 922(j) (possession of stolen firearms; elements: possession, stolen, knowing, interstate travel), reversed both as principal (same no-possession reasoning) and as aider and abettor (no evidence of participation or knowledge of the principals' intent). The law file covers only 922(g), so the 922(j) holdings have no block.
misfit Accomplice liability (18 U.S.C. 2) is an overlay on the elements: the status element is tested against the principals, not the defendant. The notation cannot say "element of the offence as committed by another", so the aiding-and-abetting block is `not-reached` / role background / scope procedural with `party` + `theory`, and the absence of proof of the principals' felon status is carried by its fact lines and gloss only.
misfit The ruling that the government's "flight as consciousness of guilt" closing argument was an abuse of discretion (flight tied to the burglary, not to the federal offences) is an evidentiary/argument ruling integrated into the sufficiency analysis; no element id, mentioned only in gloss.
misfit Known misfit 6: majority and dissent draw opposite inferences from the same undisputed facts (crawling out of the cubbyhole, guns with accomplices, no fingerprints); polarity is per block, so the same fact appears with different weight in two blocks, and the dissent's rebuttal of the no-fingerprint point (expert: prints are rarely recovered from firearms) is not captured.