Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-12-2019
Case Style:
United States of America v. Jackie Duncan
Case Number: 18-6009
Judge: Jerome A. Holmes
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on appeal from the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Jackie Duncan appeals his conviction for, among other offenses, being a felon in
possession of a firearm. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Duncan was a member of the 107 Hoover Crips gang. During February and
March 2014, he and other gang members committed several robberies and shootings in
Lawton, Oklahoma.
2
Duncan was eventually arrested and tried on eight counts: conspiracy to interfere
with commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); felon in possession of a firearm, 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1); possessing/brandishing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); interfering with commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(two counts); and possessing/brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a violent crime, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (two counts).
Before trial, Duncan filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence that
Anthony Johnson had “identified [him] as the individual who shot him . . . on February
27, 2014.” R., Vol. I at 135. Duncan argued that “[t]his evidence is not admissible
pursuant to Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid., is not inextricably intertwined with the facts of the
case, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). He explained that “[i]f the jury
receives evidence that [he] not only possessed and discharged the firearm alleged in [the
felon-in-possession count] of the superseding indictment . . . , but that he also shot
someone with it[,] then there is a substantial risk the jury will assume [he] acted in
conformity and committed the other acts charged in the remaining counts.” Id. at 137.
The government opposed the motion, asserting that the “shooting completes the story of
the crime charged.” Id. at 148. The district judge denied the motion.
At trial, the prosecutor elicited that Johnson had been shot by Duncan.
Specifically, Johnson, who described himself as an “[o]ld gang member” of the 24 Karat
Crips, id., Vol. III at 328, 333, testified that he got shot in the back on February 27, 2014,
3
after going to a house on McKinley Street to buy crack cocaine. He explained that he
went inside and saw “7-Shot,” a member of the 107 Hoover Crips—a gang that Johnson
had robbed in the past. Id. at 339, 340. Feeling “a bad vibe,” id. at 341, Johnson went
outside to the front yard. There, he saw Duncan, who was also a 107 Hoover gang
member, coming toward him from the back yard. According to Johnson, Duncan shot
him and then and called for 7-Shot, who came outside, shooting at Johnson as well.
Johnson retreated to the back of the house while Duncan and 7-Shot jumped in a vehicle
and drove off.
Johnson further testified that he called 911 and reported he had been shot in the
back. Police officers responded, located Johnson, and summoned an ambulance. Officer
Lindsey Adamson testified that when she encountered Johnson, he “had blood on his
jacket and a bullet hole in his back.” Id. at 290. The officers searched the area and found
six .40 caliber and seven 9mm shell casings.
The prosecution next provided evidence of Duncan’s involvement in crimes two
days later—evidence that showed Duncan’s possession of the same gun he had used to
shoot Johnson. Specifically, during the early morning hours of March 1, 2014, Duncan
and several of his associates robbed drug dealers and others at two separate residences.
One of the drug dealers, Travis Carpenter, testified that Duncan pointed a 9mm
pistol at him in the kitchen while Duncan and an associate robbed him. Carpenter
indicated that Duncan or the other man fired one or two shots in the process, and that
both men “jumped on [him] . . . [and] beat [him] down.” Id. at 455. Police later
discovered two bullet holes in the kitchen, and they recovered a 9mm shell casing.
4
The other drug dealer, Donald Willis, testified that Duncan, 7-Shot, and others
broke into his bedroom and demanded Willis’s gun and money. According to Willis,
Duncan threatened to shoot Willis if he moved, and after the assailants found his gun and
money, Duncan threatened to kill him if he reported the incident.
Duncan, by then the subject of two arrest warrants, was apprehended on April 9,
2014, by Lawton police officers who had been dispatched to a residence on a report of a
burglary in progress. Duncan had driven to the residence with 7-Shot and another
member of the 107 Hoover Crips, who testified that Duncan was carrying a pistol in a
holster. When police arrived, Duncan fled on foot and discarded the holster. Police
captured Duncan, found the holster, and discovered a fully-loaded 9mm pistol under the
driver’s seat that fit into the holster. A firearms examiner testified that the eight 9mm
shell casings found at the two residences were fired in the pistol recovered from
Duncan’s car.
The jury found Duncan guilty on six of the eight counts: conspiracy; being a felon
in possession of a firearm; interfering with commerce by robbery (two counts); and
possessing/brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a violent crime (two counts). The
court sentenced Duncan to 386 months’ imprisonment: 384 months for the two counts of
possessing/brandishing a firearm; consecutive to 1 month for the conspiracy and
interference-with-commerce counts; consecutive to 1 month for the felon-in-possession
count.
5
DISCUSSION
Duncan contends the district court erred in admitting evidence that he shot
Johnson. Duncan stresses that he was not charged for the shooting, and he asserts that
“the government could [have] introduce[d] evidence of [his] possession of the weapon
and [participation in] gang activity without reference to the firing of the gun and the
shooting and injury of Mr. Johnson.” Aplt. Br. at 10-11. According to Duncan, evidence
of the shooting was offered only to establish his criminal disposition. “[W]e review a
district court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we reverse
[such] a decision only if it is manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Irving, 665 F.3d
1184, 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs the admission of certain uncharged
criminal or otherwise wrongful conduct: “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the
person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Such evidence
is limited to proving things like “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Id. 404(b)(2).
But the limitations of Rule 404(b)(1) and (2) are implicated only by “evidence of
acts extrinsic to the charged crime.” Irving, 665 F.3d at 1212 (emphasis added; internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[i]f the contested evidence is intrinsic to the charged
crime, then Rule 404(b) is not even applicable.” Id.
“[O]ther act evidence is intrinsic . . . when the evidence of the other act and the
evidence of the crime charged are inextricably intertwined or both acts are part of a single
6
criminal episode or the other acts were necessary preliminaries to the crime charged.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “intrinsic evidence is that which is
directly connected to the factual circumstances of the crime and provides contextual or
background information to the jury.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court would not have abused its discretion in
admitting the evidence of Johnson’s shooting as intrinsic to the felon-in-possession count.
The shooting offered context for the 9mm shell casings that were found by law
enforcement and later matched to the 9mm handgun discovered in Duncan’s car. See
United States v. Mills, 29 F.3d 545, 549 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that constructive
possession of a firearm in a jointly occupied vehicle requires “some connection or nexus
between the defendant and the firearm”). In short, Duncan’s contemporaneous
possession of the firearm and shooting of Johnson were part of a single criminal episode
that connected the gun recovered by police to Duncan. Thus, the district court had the
discretion to conclude that Rule 404(b) was not applicable. See United States v. Buckner,
868 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that prior shooting was admissible intrinsic
evidence connecting defendant to gun found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger);
United States v. Anderson, 741 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that “Rule 404(b)
does not apply when offenses committed as part of a single criminal episode become
other acts simply because the defendant is indicted for less than all of his actions”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Even though we conclude that the district court would have been acting within its
discretion in ruling that the evidence of Johnson’s shooting was not subject to Rule
7
404(b), we must still assess whether the district court would have abused its discretion in
determining that the probative value of that evidence was not substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice. See Irving, 665 F.3d at 1213 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403).
Duncan argues that the evidence of Johnson being shot was unfairly prejudicial because it
implied he had a “bad character and . . . rais[ed] the odds that he” committed the two
§ 924(c)(1)(A) crimes—brandishing or discharging a firearm during the Carpenter and
Willis robberies. Aplt. Br. at 15 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court
could reasonably reject such an argument. The evidence of Duncan’s involvement in, and
violent/threatening conduct during, the robberies was overwhelming. Both Carpenter and
Willis testified unequivocally that Duncan pointed a gun at them and robbed them.
Further, Carpenter testified that Duncan also beat him, and Willis testified that Duncan
threatened to kill him. Given the strength of the government’s evidence, the district court
would not have abused its discretion in concluding that the evidence of Duncan’s
shooting of Johnson would not likely have affected the jury’s decisionmaking regarding
the § 924(c)(1)(A) charges.
Duncan also maintains that the evidence of Johnson being shot was unfairly
prejudicial because it “was highly emotional,” given that Johnson also testified he was in
pain at trial, illiterate, homeless, and needed money for food. Aplt. Br. at 16. But these
points merely set a background for Johnson’s testimony, offering relevant information
concerning Johnson’s personal circumstances and explaining how he had agreed to testify
for the prosecution. Therefore, the district court could have reasonably concluded that
8
such background testimony would not have rendered the testimony about Duncan’s
shooting of Johnson unfairly prejudicial.
Outcome: We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: