FIPOF — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

FIPOF — sufficiency of the evidence

Where a police officer testified that the defendant admitted holding a firearm for a friend, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for felon in possession of a firearm.

“Here, we have direct evidence that Tucker possessed the rifle: Officer Caruso’s testimony that Tucker admitted he was holding the gun for a friend. This is enough to support Tucker’s conviction, regardless of his nexus to the apartment where the gun was found. See United States v. Bloch, 718 F.3d 638, 642 (7th Cir. 2013) (appellant ‘spared the government the problems of proof ordinarily associated with constructive possession, particularly the complexities that sometimes arise when firearms are discovered in a place occupied by the defendant but outside of his exclusive control,’ because he told the police the gun was his). Because Tucker admitted he was holding the gun for a friend, the government did not need to prove that he lived in Apartment 502 to establish his constructive possession of the rifle. Tucker suggests that because this testimony was not videotaped, recorded, or memorialized in a signed statement, it is not reliable and cannot support his conviction. But the jury was entitled to credit Officer Caruso’s testimony despite Tucker’s arguments it was unreliable. See Kelly, 519 F.3d at 362. Thus, the jury had adequate evidence on which to base its conclusion that Tucker possessed the gun.”

Affirmed.

13-1403 U.S. v. Tucker

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coleman, J., Kanne, J.