U.S. v. Polk, 86-1850
| Decision Date | 29 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1850,86-1850 |
| Citation | 808 F.2d 33 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joe POLK, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
David R. Freeman, Federal Public Defender, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Dean Hoag, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Joe Polk appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1202(a)(1) (1982). He argues the Government failed to prove that the gun presented at trial was a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1202(c)(3). We affirm.
At trial the Government introduced into evidence a Smith and Wesson, Model 60.38 caliber revolver. The arresting officer testified that he had removed the gun, which was loaded with five rounds of ammunition, from the defendant. No evidence was introduced concerning the condition of the gun or whether it had been test-fired.
Polk argues that the Government failed to prove the gun was a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1202(c)(3), which states in part: " '[F]irearm' means any weapon * * * which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive * * *." Polk contends the Government failed to prove the gun was capable of firing because no evidence of test-firing was presented. Accordingly, he argues that his conviction must be overturned because the Government failed to prove every element of the offense. We disagree.
The statute does not require that the Government prove the gun was actually capable of firing. See United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976). Rather, it is enough that the gun be "designed to" fire. Polk also stipulated that the "firearm named in the indictment" was shipped in interstate commerce. (Government Exhibit 9). In addition, the gun was admitted into evidence in plain view of the jury, and the jury could properly assess whether the gun could fire or was designed to fire. See United States v. Liles, 432 F.2d 18, 19-20 (9th Cir.1970) (). Further, Polk's postarrest statement, admitted into evidence, indicated that he was armed because he feared for his life. The jury thus could infer that Polk knew the gun was capable of firing.
Because we cannot say that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quilling v. U.S., 02-900.
...him guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See United States v. Buggs, 904 F.2d 1070, 1075 (7th Cir.1990), quoting United States v. Polk, 808 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir. 1986) (internal citations and footnotes omitted and holding that "we cannot accept Mr. Buggs' claim that the government is req......
-
United States v. Terrell
... ... Iowa, Central Division. Signed December 9, 2016 220 F.Supp.3d 943 Shawn Stephen Wehde, US Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff. Sean M. Conway, Stuart J. Dornan, Dornan, ... ...
-
U.S. v. Buggs
...Government prove the gun was actually capable of firing. Rather, it is enough that the gun was 'designed to' fire." United States v. Polk, 808 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). The government in this case offered testimony from a veteran officer that Mr. Buggs possessed a Smith......
-
U.S. v. Morales, S6 02 CR. 583(WHP).
...("`The statute does not require that the Government prove the gun was actually capable of firing.'") (quoting United States v. Polk, 808 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1986)); United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885, 891 (8th Cir.1987) (rejecting claim that gun was not firearm where it was "inoperable be......