U.S. v. Driggers

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge arising out of either defendant’s alleged sale of stolen firearms or his possession of firearm in his store, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting testimony that defendant contacted his co-defendant many times shortly after certain firearms were stolen and that certain firearms were found in co-defendant’s storage locker. While defendant argued that said evidence was irrelevant, said evidence passed relevancy threshold, where record showed that defendant had 46 contacts with co-defendant shortly after theft of firearms under circumstances where defendant had no contact with co-defendant during 4 months preceding theft of firearms. Fact that co-defendant had previously pleaded guilty to similar firearm charges, but admitted to only selling stolen firearms to others did not preclude govt. from presenting conflicting theory in instant prosecution, since defendant was not prejudiced by any inconsistency, where: (1) jury acquitted defendant on possession of stolen firearm charge; and (2) jury could have based instant conviction on fact that gun was found in defendant’s store. Also, Dist. Ct. could give joint possession instruction to jury, where defendant and another individual co-leased store where gun was found.