United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994-08-17
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal; jury conviction on seven firearms and drug counts (Count Six = 922(g)(1)); defendant appeals admission of the details of his prior convictions (plain error), denial of severance, and his absence from an in-chambers conference on a jury question; result: claimant-won; claim: (g)(1)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/32/0867-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Count Six charged possession of a Beretta .380; the jury convicted and possession is not challenged on appeal. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/32/0867-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 | Conviction punishable by more than one year | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (g)(1); count: Count Six (possession of a Beretta .380 pistol); subject: count=Count Six (possession of a Beretta .380 pistol) REAL RULING: evidentiary, on plain-error review - admission of the details of the prior convictions (indictments, complaints, sentencing transcript) is assumed arguendo to be error and held not to have affected substantial rights given overwhelming evidence. This court does not decide whether the status element was met: the jury found it on certified New York records and its sufficiency was never challenged on appeal. Hence not-reached, scope procedural; the fact lines record the trial proof, the held line is the no-prejudice ruling. | proof-of-prior-conviction/certified-records-with-offense-details-no-stipulation | Exhibits Six and Seven were certified copies of convictions on indictments returned in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the Bronx.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [2327:2478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.Pursuant to this indictment, Rhodes pleaded guilty in the New York court to first degree manslaughter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [2839:2941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.A jury found Rhodes guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and apparently not guilty of the remaining counts of the indictment which were not dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [3450:3673] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.Rhodes’s counsel stated, “No objection” and the district court then ruled, “Be so admitted.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [4122:4214] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.The nature of the conviction is not an element of Section 922(g)(1).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [10647:10715] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.However, when a defendant does not stipulate the fact of his prior conviction, the Government must prove it because it is an element of the offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [10861:11009] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894.We do not find that the error we assume for purposes of deciding this case affected Rhodes’s substantial rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_32.jsonl#/f3d/32/0867-01; Unicode character offsets [12685:12797] (end exclusive); SHA-256 92e90cf7550f23e3c842be216d2d82bd4cf9e5cf3244710150d55f787a1c2894. |