United States v. Young

• Decision Date: 28 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. CR 17-0694 JB,CR 17-0694 JB
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. APACHE YOUNG, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. APACHE YOUNG, Defendant.

No. CR 17-0694 JB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

November 28, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, filed September 26, 2018 (Doc. 103)("Motion"). The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiff United States of America failed to establish that Defendant Apache Young had been convicted of a felony that would disqualify him from owning a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and (ii) whether the United States was required to prove that the firearms in question were manufactured after 1898. The Court concludes that: (i) the United States established that Young had been convicted of a disqualifying felony, because the Stipulation that Young signed incorporated Young's Indictment, which referenced three qualifying felony convictions; and (ii) the United States was not required to prove that the firearms were manufactured after 1898, because the antique firearms exception is an affirmative defense that Young did not properly raise. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Young with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See Indictment at 1, filed March 14, 2017 (Doc. 2). The Indictment states, in relevant part, that,

[o]n or about November 13, 2016, in Bernalillo County, in the District of New Mexico, the defendant, APACHE YOUNG, having been convicted of at least one of the following felony crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year: (1) receiving and transferring a stolen motor vehicle, (2) attempt to commit a felony, to wit robbery, (3) aggravated battery, knowingly possessed, in and affecting commerce, a firearm. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(l).

Indictment at 1 (emphasis in Indictment). The Court ordered the trial to commence on September 17, 2018. See Order to Continue at 2, filed September 7, 2018 (Doc. 69). Before trial, Young filed the Motion in Limine to Exclude Use of Prior Convictions. See Motion in Limine to Exclude Use of Prior Convictions at 1, filed September 11, 2018 (Doc. 78)("Convictions Motion"). The Convictions Motion states that Young "is willing to stipulate to his status of being a felon to satisfy a necessary element of the offense." Convictions Motion at 1 (citing Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 181 (1997)). Young remarks that his "criminal record is long and marked by violence. Amongst them are convictions for Attempted Robbery, Aggravated Battery, Robbery with a Weapon, Robbery and Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon." Convictions Motion at 1. Moreover, Young avers that the "nature of these prior convictions, is that they are inherently violent, and, highly prejudicial," and Young therefore requests that the Court exclude reference to Young's prior criminal record. Convictions Motion at 1. The United States responds that Young, "pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 609(a)(1), may be impeached by his prior felony convictions provided that the facts of the convictions and their attendant sentences are not referenced," because Young's impeachment's probative value "exceeds any derivative and collateral prejudicial effect." Response by the United States to the Defendant's Motions in Limine at 3, filed September 12, 2018 (Doc. 83). The Court held a pretrial conference and motion hearing. See Transcript of Hearing at 1:22-23 (takenSeptember 12, 2018)("Sep. 12 Tr.").¹ At the hearing, the Court acknowledged that "we have two stipulations² . . . we have a stipulation that prior to November 13, 2016[,] that the [D]efendant had sustained a felony conviction." Sep. 12 Tr. at 19:3-7 (Court). The Court then instructed both parties to sign the Stipulations and to ensure that Young "knows exactly what he's been stipulated for." Sep. 12 Tr. at 19:8-11 (Court). Young relied that he would "take care of it." Sep. 12 Tr. at 19:12 (Knoblauch). The parties then agreed to have the Court read the Stipulation to the jury, see Sep. 12 Tr. at 19:15-20:1 (Court, Spiers, Knoblauch), which, according to Young, gives it "a bit more authority," Sep. 12 Tr. at 19:3-7 (Knoblauch). Young was tried on September 17, 2018. See Clerk's Minutes for Proceedings Held Before District Judge James O. Browning: Jury Selection/Trial as to Apache Young held on 9/17/2018 and 9/18/2018 at 1, filed September 17, 2018 (Doc. 100)("Clerk's Minutes: Jury Selection/Trial").

In the United States' opening statement, the United States told the jury that the firearms in this case consist of: one Hi-Point .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol, one .30-06 rifle, and one shotgun. See Excerpt -- Opening Statements and Closing Arguments at 9:4-7 (Spiers), filed October 3, 2018 (Doc. 110)("Statements/Arguments Tr."). See also Excerpt -- Trial Testimony Only at 59:14-16 (Spiers), filed October 3, 2018 (Doc. 109)("Testimony Tr.")(identifying the rife as a .30-06 Remington and the shotgun as a 12-gauge Remington). The United States further informed the jury that "you'll have two stipulations. I may have mentioned it. The Court will read you two stipulations: One, again, that he was a convicted felon on that date . . . . Those . . . stipulations provide those elements for your satisfaction and your comfort."Statements/Arguments Tr. at 9:21-10:6 (Spiers). In Young's opening statement, Young asserted that "[t]here are parts of this case that are cut and dry, the Government is right. Those are the parts that we have already stipulated to . . . . And that's because we don't want to waste your time with things that are very easy to decide and very straightforward." Statements/Arguments Tr. at 11:18-23 (Wernersbach).

After the parties' opening statements, the Court read to the jury the Stipulation regarding Young's felony conviction:

Government's Exhibit one is [a] stipulation regarding prior felony convictions, . . . . [T]he part[ies] by and through their undersigned counsel stipulate and agree as follows[:] one[,] the defendant Apache Young prior to November 13, 2016[,] had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that is a felony offense as charged in the indictment of this case. And then[,] two[,] this stipulated fact is proved beyond a reasonable doubt and may be read to the jury at trial. This stipulation also release[e]s [the] Government [from] its burden of proof with regard t[o] t[he] defendant's status as a felon at the time relevant t[o] t[he] charge contained in the indictment. Acknowledged to agreed and stipulated. Mr. Apache Young, the defendant has signed it dated the [1]2[th] of [September] 2018 . . . Charles E [Knoblauch] counsel for the defendant signed the [unintelligible] 2018[,] and Paul H [Spiers] [A]ssistant U.S. Attorney has signed the [unintelligible] September 12, 2018.

Trial Transcript -- Day 1 at 172:6-173:2 (Court)("Trial Tr.").³ See Clerk's Minutes: Jury Selection/Trial at 3 ("Court reads 2 stipulations, exhibit 1 and 2.").

In the United States' case in chief, the United States called Task Force Officer Timothy Hotle. See Excerpt -- Trial Testimony Only at 59:14-16 (Spiers), filed October 3, 2018 (Doc. 109)("Testimony Tr."). Hotle testified that he test fired the three firearms in this case, and that each firearm functioned as designed. See Testimony Tr. at 61:19-62:15 (Spiers). On cross-examination, Young questioned Hotle about the pistol's firing mechanism. See Testimony Tr. at64:2-23 (Knoblauch). Young stated:

Knoblauch: Okay. That's kind of an old system; is that right?

Hotle: What do you mean by "old"?

Knoblauch: It's not something -- semi-automatic pistols weren't invented yesterday, were they?

Hotle: No, not yesterday.

Knoblauch: Quite a long time ago; is that right?

Hotle: I'm not sure when they were invented.

Knoblauch: Is that what you would call an expensive type of gun, or --

Hotle: Like what the value of this would be?

Knoblauch: Yeah.

Hotle: No, Hi[-]Points are generally cheaper firearms.

Testimony Tr. at 65:2-15 (Knoblauch, Hotle).

Knoblauch: Now, let me see: These other two items are made by Remington; is that right?

Hotle: They're both Remingtons, yes.

Knoblauch: Now, Remington is a company in New York; is that correct?

Hotle: Yes, New York or New Jersey.

Knoblauch: And do you know anything about the history of Remington?

Hotle: No.

Knoblauch: You don't know it's been around for a couple hundred years?

Hotle: I couldn't tell you. I don't collect guns. I'm not like a gun enthusiast, per se. I'm just experienced with them.

Testimony Tr. at 67:7-20 (Knoblauch, Hotle). Young further questioned Hotle about the pistol's firing mechanism:

Knoblauch: Pushing towards the back. That's what operates the mechanism?

Hotle: Yes.

Knoblauch: And that's -- again, it's an old system; is that right?

Hotle: I don't know when it was -- I don't know. I don't know when it came into invention. Old is -- I mean, old to you is different from what's old to me, so I don't know.

Knoblauch: I see.

Hotle: It's been around for a while. I mean, I don't know. I'm not sure what you want me to answer on this. I don't know when it was invented, and I don't know how old it is.

Testimony Tr. at 72:13-73:1 (Knoblauch, Hotle).

At the close of the United States' case, Young made an oral motion pursuant to rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Trial Tr. at 241:23-24 (Knoblauch). Young asserted that, "although there has been information brought before the Court and the jury that Mr. Young is a felon," the United States failed to indicate that Young's specific felony conviction deprived him of his right to own a firearm. Trial Tr. at 242:3-9 (Knoblauch). Young referenced § 921(a)(20)(A), which disqualifies felonies related to the regulation of business practices from § 922(g)(1)'s firearms' prohibition, and stated that the government offered no proof that "Young's...