United States v. Bedford

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 16, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 07-3353
(D. Ct. No. 6:07-CR-10094-MLB-1)
MALCOLM T. BEDFORD, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, KELLY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Malcolm Bedford of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal,
Mr. Bedford argues that the evidence was not sufficient for a reasonable jury to
find him guilty. We hold that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
convict Mr. Bedford. Taking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore
AFFIRM his conviction.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
I. BACKGROUND
Early on the morning of October 29, 2006, a crowd gathered outside the
American Legion Club in Wichita, Kansas. Police officers who were members of
Wichita’s Special Community Action Team also were on site because the club had
been the location of several prior disturbances. Officer Christian Cory, who was
less than fifty feet from the club on its east side, saw a black male raise a gun into
the air and fire it. Though he could not see the man’s entire body, Officer Cory
testified that the shooter was wearing a white T-shirt and a black baseball cap that
had yellow stripes coming down from the top. After the gunshot, many people in
the crowd started running. The man who fired the gun disappeared into the
crowd, and Officer Cory was unable to locate him. He radioed what he had seen
to other officers.
Officer Travis Easter was on the west side of the club outside the gates to
the parking lot when he heard the gunshot. He then saw approximately thirty to
forty people run out of one of the gates. One man in particular caught Officer
Easter’s attention because he was slouched over with his hands shoved inside his
T-shirt, as if he was hiding something under his clothes. Officer Easter testified
that he shined his flashlight on the man, who then looked in the officer’s direction
and a moment later started running away. Officer Easter said he got a good look
at the man’s face before the man ran away.
Concerned that the man had a gun, Officer Easter chased the suspect.
-2-
When Officer Easter was about twenty feet away from him, the suspect ran
around an automobile that was parked in a driveway. Officer Easter saw the man
crouch down near the right-front tire. The suspect made a motion with his arm,
and Officer Easter believed the suspect had hidden something. The suspect then
continued running away, and Officer Easter radioed for help while he approached
the car. He found a loaded nine-millimeter handgun on the tire.
Officer Easter resumed chasing the suspect. At trial, Officer Easter
testified that he saw the suspect running away from him toward the south, and
then saw him turn east onto a side street. As Officer Easter rounded the corner,
he saw that other officers had already stopped the suspect. Officer Easter yelled
to the other officers that they had “the guy,” and the officers placed the suspect
into custody. Officer Cory, who had heard the radio call for assistance, also had
arrived by this point.
Officer Easter testified that the person who was taken into custody—Mr.
Bedford—was the same person he had seen coming out of the gate, and the same
person he had seen squatting by the side of a car during the ensuing chase. After
Mr. Bedford was taken into custody, Officer Easter noticed a black baseball cap
on the ground near Mr. Bedford. That hat was a black Los Angeles Dodgers cap
with yellow stripes. Officer Cory identified the hat in court as the same hat he
had seen on the man who fired the gun in the parking lot. Officer Cory also
testified that he saw Mr. Bedford wearing the hat when he was arrested.
-3-
After Mr. Bedford had been taken into custody, Officer Cory returned to
the parking lot to search for evidence. He found a shell casing. At trial, a
firearm tool mark examiner testified that the shell casing matched the gun that
Officer Easter had found on the tire during the chase.
The defense called three witnesses during the trial. One testified that Mr.
Bedford was not the man who shot the gun into the air. Another witness testified
that Mr. Bedford was grabbing the wrist of the man who had the gun. The third
witness testified that she saw Mr. Bedford on the ground, being kicked by
approximately twenty people. She said she went inside and then heard gunshots.
On appeal, Mr. Bedford argues there was insufficient evidence to convict
him. In particular, he notes Officer Easter’s testimony that he did not see blood
on the shirt of the man he was chasing. A photograph of Mr. Bedford, taken after
he was in custody, shows a significant amount of blood on his shirt in the right
shoulder area. Mr. Bedford also argues that the police did not find any matching
fingerprints on the gun. In addition, he argues that the situation was extremely
chaotic, with dozens of people—most of them African-American—running in
various directions. Because Officer Easter twice lost sight of the man he was
chasing, Mr. Bedford argues that it was not reasonable for the jury to find that
Mr. Bedford was the man who had possessed the gun.
-4-
II. DISCUSSION
We review whether the government presented sufficient evidence to uphold
a conviction de novo. United States v. Sells, 477 F.3d 1226, 1235 (10th Cir.
2007). “We will not uphold a conviction obtained by piling inference upon
inference,” and the conviction must be supported by substantial evidence that
“does more than raise a mere suspicion of guilt.” United States v. Jameson, 478
F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).
Still, a defendant must overcome a difficult burden when challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence. We consider all evidence “in the light most favorable
to the government.” Sells, 477 F.3d at 1235. In applying this standard, “[w]e
will not weigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the fact-finding decisions of
the jury.” Id. We also will not assess the credibility of witnesses. United States
v. Bowen, 527 F.3d 1065, 1076 (10th Cir. 2008). We will overturn the conviction
“only if no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotations omitted).
To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the prosecution must
prove that “1) the defendant was convicted of a felony; 2) the defendant thereafter
knowingly possessed a firearm; and 3) the possession was in or affecting
interstate commerce.” United States v. Capps, 77 F.3d 350, 352 (10th Cir. 1996).
The parties stipulated to the first and third elements of the alleged crime. In order
to reverse Mr. Bedford’s conviction, therefore, we must conclude that no rational
-5-
trier of fact would find that Mr. Bedford knowingly possessed a firearm.
The government can establish this element by proving either actual or
constructive possession. Jameson, 478 F.3d at 1209. The government in this case
alleges actual possession, which “exists when a person has direct physical control
over a firearm at a given time.” Id.Even when the government claims actual possession, it is not necessary for
a witness to have seen the gun in the defendant’s possession. 1 For instance, in
Jameson we held the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find actual possession
when a police officer found a gun on the floor of a car. Id. at 1210. In that case,
the officer testified that as he approached the car, the defendant leaned forward as
if to retrieve or conceal something under the seat. Id. The officer then found the
gun in the spot where the defendant’s foot had been. Id. Based on this testimony,
we held that “a reasonable juror could infer that Mr. Jameson had actual physical
control of the pistol when the car was pulled over and that he was trying to hide it
underneath the seat or under his foot as [the officer] approached.” Id.In this case, the jury could reasonably convict Mr. Bedford based on the
trial testimony of the two officers. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to
the government, we have the following information. Officer Cory witnessed a
1
In this case, Officer Cory did see the gun being fired, but Officer Cory was
unable to identify the man who fired it. He could only identify the hat that later
was found near Mr. Bedford as the hat he had seen on the shooter. Officer Easter
identified Mr. Bedford as the man he had chased, but he did not see the gun until
he found it abandoned on a vehicle tire.
-6-
man fire a gun into the air and saw him wearing a black hat with yellow stripes.
As the crowd left the parking lot, Officer Easter saw a man who looked suspicious
because he had his hands down his shirt and appeared to be hiding something.
Officer Easter got a good look at the man because he shined his flashlight on him.
The man then ran away, and Officer Easter chased him. Officer Easter watched
the suspect crouch down by the front-right wheel of a vehicle, and then the officer
found a nine-millimeter handgun on the front-right tire.
The officer continued to chase the suspect and radioed for help. Shortly
thereafter, other officers apprehended a man, and Officer Easter identified that
man as the suspect whom he had been chasing. Officer Easter found a baseball
cap on the ground near the man, and Officer Cory identified that hat as the hat
worn by the man who had fired a gun into the air. In addition, Officer Cory found
a shell casing that matched the gun found on the tire. Provided with all of that
testimony, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Mr. Bedford possessed a
firearm. 2
We need not consider the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses because it
is the province of the jury to assess their credibility. The absence of fingerprints
2
Citing United States v. Bredy, 209 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2000), Mr.
Bedford argues that the officers’ identifications are unreliable and thus do not
support his conviction. That case, however, concerns the admissibility of in-court
and pre-trial identifications made during a show-up identification procedure. Id.
at 1195. In contrast, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not
re-weigh the credibility of witnesses or decide conflicting evidence. Bowen, 527
F.3d at 1076.
-7-
on the gun does not by itself render the evidence insufficient. See, e.g., United
States v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 1403, 1430–31 (10th Cir. 1990) (upholding a
conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm where the defendant claimed
he was miles away when the gun was seized and his fingerprints were not on the
gun); United States v. Robinson, 139 Fed. Appx. 74, 76–77 (10th Cir. July 1,
2005) (unpublished) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a
conviction for possessing a firearm, even though the gun was found outside the
defendant’s possession and the fingerprints on the gun could not be matched to
the defendant’s prints).
The blood on Mr. Bedford’s shirt and the chaotic nature of the scene do not
inform our inquiry into the sufficiency of the government’s evidence. It is the
jury’s role to weigh the defendant’s evidence against the government’s evidence.
Our only inquiry is whether the government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain a
conviction. The testimony of two police officers—one of whom clearly saw the
suspect before, during and after a chase—plus the physical evidence obtained in
this case establish that it was reasonable for the jury to convict Mr. Bedford.
-8-
III. CONCLUSION
The evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that
Mr. Bedford knowingly possessed a firearm. We therefore AFFIRM his
conviction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-9-