United States of America v. Christopher Barefield

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1781
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Barefield
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: December 11, 2023
Filed: February 14, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Christopher Barefield for being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to
88 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Barefield
appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. “We review
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” United States v. Spight, 817
F.3d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
At trial, the government presented photos, officer testimony, and dash camera
video as evidence. Specifically, an investigator testified that he felt a firearm in
Barefield’s pocket while conducting a routine pat-down. As the investigator tried to
control Barefield and hold onto the firearm through an outer layer of clothing,
Barefield fled. A chase ensued. The investigator testified that during the chase,
Barefield took the firearm out of his pocket and had it in his hand. Barefield jumped
multiple fences and crossed an interstate exit ramp. The investigator followed and
eventually was able to catch up to Barefield. By the time of Barefield’s arrest, the
investigator had injured himself, and Barefield no longer had the gun. The
investigator shared the route of the chase with two colleagues who retraced the path
and were able to find the gun on the ground in a ditch.
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the facts in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and affirm if any rational [jury] could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover,
“[c]redibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact, and
are entitled to special deference.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). We
conclude that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict was
sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that Barefield was in possession of a
firearm.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --