U.S. v. Davis

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not plainly err in admitting prior consistent statements of govt. witnesses through police officer. While defendant argued that said evidence conflicted with Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii), since instant consistent statements by said witnesses to police officer at scene of defendant’s arrest were made at time when said witnesses had motive to lie, Ct. found that it was unclear whether introduction of consistent statements actually violated Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). Ct also rejected defendant’s claim that testimony of 6-year-old witness regarding defendant’s possession of firearm was so prejudicial so as to warrant its exclusion. Moreover, govt. could call officer to impeach govt. witness, where, as here, anticipated testimony of said witness was unclear due to fact that govt. was not afforded opportunity to meet with said witness prior to witness taking witness stand. Too, record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction on unlawful possession of firearm charge under theory that defendant had constructively possessed said firearm, even though firearm was found in defendant’s home where others also resided, where: (1) defendant was head of household; (2) police discovered three Crown Royal bags in said home, one of which contained firearm and another was tied to defendant’s pants; and (3) defendant attempted to influence his son’s testimony indicating that defendant did not possess said firearm.