United States v. Blackbird

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Blackbird

231 F. App'x 574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 2007

DocketNo. 06-30326

StatusPublished

This text of 231 F. App'x 574 (United States v. Blackbird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Blackbird, 231 F. App'x 574 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Appellant Blackbird was convicted of six gun and drug charges in the district court. On appeal, he argues that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of four of the charges, including one count of drug possession and three counts of gun possession. He also argues that the district court unconstitutionally limited his cross-examination of one witness. We disagree and affirm.

Possession can be actual or constructive. See United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1997). “To prove constructive possession, the government must prove a sufficient connection between the defendant and the contraband to support the inference that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the substance.” United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 278 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although this is a close case, we believe that a rational jury could infer from the evidence that appellant exercised dominion and control over the gun and drugs. Appellant lived in the basement where the safe—which contained the items at issue here—was found, and the two other residents of the house denied owning the items. In combination, this evidence was sufficient for a jury reasonably to infer that appellant constructively possessed the gun and drugs.

Appellant’s Confrontation Clause claim must also fail. Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless error review. Barajas v. Wise, 481 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2007). Here, all of the [576]*576evidence that appellant wished to elicit through cross-examination was already admitted into the record through other means. Because this evidence was already in the record, any error in the district court’s decision to curtail cross-examination of the witness was rendered harmless.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

Appellant Blackbird was convicted of six gun and drug charges in the district court. On appeal, he argues that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of four of the charges, including one count of drug possession and three counts of gun possession. He also argues that the district court unconstitutionally limited his cross-examination of one witness. We disagree and affirm.

Possession can be actual or constructive. See United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1997). “To prove constructive possession, the government must prove a sufficient connection between the defendant and the contraband to support the inference that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the substance.” United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 278 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although this is a close case, we believe that a rational jury could infer from the evidence that appellant exercised dominion and control over the gun and drugs. Appellant lived in the basement where the safe—which contained the items at issue here—was found, and the two other residents of the house denied owning the items. In combination, this evidence was sufficient for a jury reasonably to infer that appellant constructively possessed the gun and drugs.

Appellant’s Confrontation Clause claim must also fail. Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless error review. Barajas v. Wise, 481 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2007). Here, all of the [576]*576evidence that appellant wished to elicit through cross-examination was already admitted into the record through other means. Because this evidence was already in the record, any error in the district court’s decision to curtail cross-examination of the witness was rendered harmless.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-blackbird-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack