United States v. Jerry Wana Taylor , 669 F. App'x 520 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-14991 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14991
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cr-00002-WTH-PRL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY WANA TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 23, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14991 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Jerry Wana Taylor appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Taylor
argues the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal
because there was a high probability the DNA evidence recovered from the firearm
was contaminated. After review, 1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
Taylor contends a reasonable juror could not conclude his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt because the responding officer did not use the proper protocol in
collecting the DNA evidence and placed the firearm on Taylor’s seat while
unloading it, resulting in a false positive.
A court must enter a judgment of acquittal on the defendant’s motion with
respect to any offense “for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction
if a reasonable trier of fact, choosing among reasonable interpretations of the
evidence, could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Diaz-Boyzo,
432 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
The only contested issue is whether Taylor possessed the firearm, since the
parties stipulated the other elements of § 922(g) are satisfied. Possession can be
1
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo. United States v. Hernandez,
433 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we review the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting a conviction de novo. Id. However, all factual and credibility inferences are made in
favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1297–98 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation omitted).
2
Case: 15-14991 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 3 of 4
actual or constructive and proven via direct or circumstantial evidence. United
States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant has
constructive possession over a firearm if he “exercises ownership, dominion, or
control” or “has the power and intention to exercise dominion or control” over it.
Id. (citing United States v. Gunn, 369 F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004)).
The district court did not err in denying Taylor’s motion for acquittal
because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine Taylor knowingly
possessed the firearm. At trial, the Government presented evidence Taylor’s DNA
profile matched DNA recovered from the firearm’s hammer and trigger. The
Government also presented evidence showing that, though the firearm was
improperly handled, neither officer directly handled its hammer or trigger.
According to Government witnesses, the hammer and trigger never made direct,
physical contact with any other surface, including the passenger seat, which was
dry even though Taylor had been sweating. Both the Government’s and Taylor’s
expert witnesses agreed that such contact would have been necessary to transfer
DNA to the weapon. Though Taylor’s expert believed there to be a high likelihood
of DNA contamination, the Government presented sufficient evidence to the
contrary, and the jury was free to choose among reasonable interpretations of the
evidence. See Diaz-Boyzo, 432 F.3d at 1269; United States v. McLean, 802 F.3d
1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The government need not rebut all reasonable
3
Case: 15-14991 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 4 of 4
hypotheses other than guilt, and the jury may choose among the conclusions to be
drawn from the evidence at trial.”); see also United States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d
1234, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he district court must accept all reasonable
inferences and credibility determinations made by the jury.”) (citation omitted).
II. CONCLUSION
The Government presented sufficient evidence to support Taylor’s
conviction, and accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Taylor’s
motion for a judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
4