Source: cases/18usc922/f3d-57-516-us-v-kitchen.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_57/0516_01/index.html
If he in fact resided at Williams’s home, then he had the power to exercise control over the two firearms.
The jury might have determined that he lived at the residence and occupied the bedroom where the guns were located. Under these circumstances, we believe that Kitchen constructively possessed the guns in question.
Because the evidence established that Kitchen resided in the home in which the police located the firearms, it was sufficient to support Kitchen’s conviction for the possession of a firearm.
Kitchen does not contest the first and third elements of his conviction, but he does contend that evidence supporting the second element is lacking.
(3) that the firearm had traveled in or affected interstate commerce.
casedsl 1
case /f3d/57/0516-01
name United States v. Kitchen
cite 57 F.3d 516 (1995)
court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
date 1995-06-07
url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_57/0516_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl sha1=36188f635dba081563a0147aaf836e76402a3259 chars=30239
law 18usc922 (g)(1)
role applied
posture criminal; jury conviction for felon in possession of two handguns found in the bedroom of his girlfriend's house (plus a 21 U.S.C. 841 cocaine count annotated separately); defendant appeals sufficiency of the evidence on possession only; firearm conviction affirmed
result claimant-won
element possession : satisfied [proved]
count felon-in-possession count (.357 revolver and 9 mm pistol in a first-floor bedroom)
theory constructive possession through residence in the home; joint with the girlfriend
variant constructive/firearm-in-bedroom-of-shared-residence
fact @3994..4264 [supports] | Both weapons were found in a bedroom on the first floor of the residence. The .357 magnum was discovered in the bed area, leaning up against the back of the headboard. The .9 millimeter was recovered from a dresser drawer along with an additional magazine of ammunition.
fact @8171..8352 [supports] | The search revealed, in addition to the firearms, a number of Kitchen’s possessions — his El Rukn bracelet, bills and papers bearing his name and various articles of men’s clothing.
fact @7897..8170 [supports] | In many of the recorded drug conversations with Kitchen, agents had reached him by calling the telephone number at that address. According to the government, Kitchen had stated that he lived at that address. Agents in fact saw Kitchen at that address on numerous occasions.
fact @8492..8606 [cuts-against] | Kitchen argues that he in fact lived with his mother in Robbins, Illinois, and only visited Williams occasionally.
fact @9059..9186 [cuts-against] | It is not material, contrary to Kitchen’s assertions, that he was incarcerated at the time the agents actually seized the guns.
fact @10186..10297 [cuts-against] | The fact that Williams, too, had access to the firearms fails to negate the inference that Kitchen did as well.
rule @7417..7650 [quoted] | Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others....
rule @9351..9457 | If he in fact resided at Williams’s home, then he had the power to exercise control over the two firearms.
held @10513..10726 | The jury might have determined that he lived at the residence and occupied the bedroom where the guns were located. Under these circumstances, we believe that Kitchen constructively possessed the guns in question.
held @27121..27311 | Because the evidence established that Kitchen resided in the home in which the police located the firearms, it was sufficient to support Kitchen’s conviction for the possession of a firearm.
gloss Sufficiency upheld: residence in the home (his papers, gang bracelet, men's clothing in the same bedroom as the guns; phone number; sightings; paid for repairs) gives power to control firearms found there. Joint access by the girlfriend and his being in custody when the guns were seized (he was arrested at the drug deal earlier that day) are held immaterial. The opinion infers power to control from residence and does not separately analyse intention or knowledge of the guns.
element status.g1 : satisfied [conceded]
variant prior-felony/uncontested-on-appeal
held @6909..7057 | Kitchen does not contest the first and third elements of his conviction, but he does contend that evidence supporting the second element is lacking.
gloss "First element" = previous felony conviction; the opinion gives no facts about it.
gloss CAVEAT: rests on a single sentence saying the element was not contested on appeal; no facts and no reasoning - thin as authority on what satisfies status.g1.
element commerce-possession : satisfied [conceded]
variant prior-interstate-travel/uncontested-on-appeal
rule @6721..6790 | (3) that the firearm had traveled in or affected interstate commerce.
gloss "Third element", expressly not contested (see the held line under status.g1); no facts given.
gloss CAVEAT: rests on that single uncontested sentence; the opinion says nothing about the firearms' origin or movement - thin as authority on what satisfies the commerce nexus.
element knowledge-possession : not-reached
gloss Appears only inside the quoted definition ("knowingly has the power and the intention"); whether he knew the guns were in the bedroom is not separately discussed.
misfit The larger part of the opinion reverses the 21 U.S.C. 841 cocaine conviction for lack of possession; it is annotated in 21usc841/ and not recorded here. The opinion treats "possession" as one doctrine across both statutes (constructive possession affirmed for the guns, denied for the drugs); the notation has no cross-law link between the two blocks of one opinion. `result claimant-won` is for the 922(g) count only.
misfit Temporal aspect of possession: the court holds the jury could find he constructively possessed the guns BEFORE his arrest although they were seized afterwards. "When" an element was satisfied (relative to seizure / custody) has no slot; it sits in a cuts-against fact and the gloss.
misfit Known misfit 5: status and commerce are "not contested" on appeal after a jury verdict, i.e. both found by the jury and conceded; one basis ([conceded]) had to be chosen. The conceded blocks have no fact lines because the opinion states none.
misfit Known misfit 6: the residence facts were disputed (he testified he lived with his mother); the court says the jury was free to disbelieve him. Fact lines cannot mark whose version was credited.