Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
18-1371•United States of America v. William Andrews
18-1371Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.07.2019
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3273
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
William Andrews
Defendant – Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City
____________
Submitted: June 28, 2019
Filed: July 3, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted William Andrews of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Andrews’s counsel requests
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
permission to withdraw and questions the district court’s1 decision to admit evidence
that Andrews had previously been convicted of a felony involving a firearm. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
this evidence. See United States v. Rembert, 851 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2017)
(explaining that a court’s admission of prior-bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b) will be reversed “only when such evidence clearly ha[d] no bearing
on the issues in the case and was introduced solely to prove the defendant’s
propensity to commit criminal acts” (citation omitted)). Evidence that Andrews had
previously possessed a gun was relevant to show that he knowingly possessed the
gun recovered in this case. See United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir.
2011). And the court’s limiting instruction to the jury helped “diminish[] the danger
of any unfair prejudice arising from [its] admission.” Id. at 488 (citation omitted).
We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other
non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.