United States of America v. Justin Domonique Davis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2978
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Justin Domonique Davis
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2025
Filed: September 11, 2025
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
KOBES, Circuit Judge.
This is a case about identity or, as Justin Domonique Davis argues, mistaken
identity. After Davis defended himself at trial, a jury found him guilty of two
charges related to a burglary at Church’s Chicken, aiding and abetting Hobbs Act
robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) and 2, and use of a firearm during and in relation to
a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Davis later pleaded guilty to more

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
Hobbs Act and firearm offenses involving other robberies. The district court1
sentenced him to a total of 180 months in prison, a downward departure. His main
argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was one
of the two men who robbed the Church’s Chicken. He also challenges the verdict
form and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm his conviction and his
sentence.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We first address whether the Government had enough evidence to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis was one of the two Church’s Chicken robbers.
We review de novo, “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
and revers[ing] only if ‘no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Hoeft, 128 F.4th 917, 921 (8th Cir.
2025) (citation omitted).
The jury watched surveillance video showing two masked men crossing the
street, drawing guns, and entering the Church’s Chicken. One man wore a gray
hoodie with a Missouri Tiger logo on the front and gloves; the second wore a black
jacket and only one glove. The first robber stood guard with his hand near his neck.
The second pointed his gun at employees and then fired into the air. When he tried
to fire again, the gun exploded, sending the barrel and cylinder flying behind the
counter. After taking cash, both robbers fled, heading in the same direction they had
approached from.
The Government introduced evidence that there was DNA from three people
on the gun barrel and that Davis was the major contributor with a frequency of one
in eight quintillion people. He was also a possible contributor of the DNA found on
the revolver cylinder, along with one other person, but only with a frequency of one
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, tried the case. The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark,
United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sentenced Davis.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
in thirty-one unrelated people. The Government also called a cooperating witness
who testified that he had previously seen a hoodie at Davis’s house that was like the
one worn by the lookout at the robbery.
Jurors heard that when police interviewed Davis, he denied knowing anything
about the Church’s Chicken robbery. When he was told that his DNA was found on
parts of the gun, Davis said he “probably touched” a gun that “these dudes” had
showed him “uh, probably like, five months ago”—which would have been in
January. When police told him the robbery was in December, Davis said that he
touched the gun “around November or something.” Davis also said that he lived
“right down the street” from the Church’s Chicken and did not have a car. A
detective testified that Davis lived three-tenths of a mile away and in the direction
that the robbers had approached from and fled toward.
Davis admits that the Government proved that the Church’s Chicken robbery
happened, but he says there was insufficient evidence that he was one of the two
robbers. His argument is not without merit; the evidence at trial was not
overwhelming. The DNA evidence showed Davis handled the gun barrel, but not
when. Both robbers were masked, and no one could positively identify Davis from
the video. And while a cooperating witness testified about the hoodie, on cross
examination Davis effectively questioned whether the hoodie worn at the robbery
was the same stained hoodie seen before.
But we do not require overwhelming evidence following a jury verdict. We
ask instead whether any reasonable jury could find Davis guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The DNA evidence, the cooperator testimony about the hoodie, the
surveillance video from four angles, Davis changing his story about the gun, and the
fact that he lived near the scene was enough for the jury to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that Davis was one of the two robbers. See United States v. Perry,
61 F.4th 603, 607 (8th Cir. 2023) (“Courtroom identification is not necessary when
evidence is sufficient to permit the inference that the defendant on trial is the person
who committed the acts charged.” (cleaned up)). There may be other, Davis-friendly

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
explanations for some of this evidence. But the jury was free to draw its own
reasonable inferences in the Government’s favor. See id. (“This court reverses a
conviction, including one based on circumstantial evidence, ‘only if no construction
of the evidence exists to support the jury’s verdict.’” (citation omitted)).
II. Jury Verdict Form
The jury found Davis guilty of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime
of violence but selected the option on the verdict form that Davis had “neither
brandished nor discharged a firearm.” Davis argues that the verdict form is
inconsistent because the jury “did not determine what acts [Davis] did to justify that
conclusion.” But the instruction says, “[y]ou may find that a firearm was used . . .
if you find that it was brandished, displayed, or discharged.” The jury must have
found Davis displayed the gun, which satisfies the “use” prong of § 924(c)(1)(A).
United States v. Summers, 137 F.3d 597, 601 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Bailey v. United
States, 516 U.S. 137, 148 (1995)). We find no error, and certainly no plain error, in
the jury instructions or verdict form. See United States v. Chappell, 665 F.3d 1012,
1014 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain error review when defendant did not object to jury
instructions or verdict form at trial).
III. Sentence
Davis’s guidelines range was 360 months to life plus mandatory consecutive
sentences of 84 months and 60 months. The Government moved for a downward
departure to 180 months in prison, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, which the district court
granted. The court denied Davis’s request for a further downward variance.
Davis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court did not adequately consider that he grew up homeless and suffered from
addiction and that it overstated the seriousness of his criminal history. We disagree.
“A district court has wide latitude in weighing relevant factors, including discretion
to assign more weight to the offense’s nature and circumstances than to the

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
defendant’s ‘mitigating personal characteristics.’” United States v. Anderson, 90
F.4th 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). And because the district court
departed downward and imposed a below guidelines range sentence, “it is nearly
inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still
further.” United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted); see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(standard of review).
IV. Conclusion
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --