The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Walter Palmon Eddings on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. Eddings was found guilty of possessing a rifle and ammunition found in an SUV, as well as two handguns discovered in a backpack he was carrying at the time of his arrest. The court rejected Eddings’s arguments challenging the district court’s decisions, including the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the use of a specific jury instruction.
The Case’s Foundation
The case stemmed from a surveillance operation conducted by Sergeant Peter Andazola of the New Mexico State Police. Andazola was observing the Ambassador Inn in Albuquerque, looking for a fugitive. During his surveillance, he also saw Eddings, who had a prior felony conviction, at the Inn.
The Events Leading to Arrest
Andazola witnessed Eddings and another man exit the Inn. The other man was carrying a bag with the barrel of a rifle visible. The man placed the bag in the back seat of a black Toyota SUV. Eddings then approached the SUV and began cleaning it. Andazola testified that he saw Eddings pick up the rifle and reposition it in the back seat. Eddings then got into the front passenger seat, the other man took the driver’s seat, and a woman got in the back before the car drove away.
Law enforcement followed the SUV and apprehended Eddings at a 7-Eleven. At the time of his arrest, Eddings was carrying a black backpack. A search of the backpack revealed two loaded handguns. The rifle and a loaded magazine were later found in the SUV after officers obtained a warrant.
The Legal Challenges
Eddings presented four main arguments on appeal:
* Probable Cause for Arrest: Eddings argued that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him because Sergeant Andazola’s testimony about seeing him handle the rifle was not credible.
* Sufficiency of Evidence (Count One): Eddings claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he knowingly possessed the rifle.
* Jury Instruction: Eddings challenged the district court’s use of an “investigative-techniques” instruction, which informed the jury that the government wasn’t required to use every available investigative method. He argued this instruction was inappropriate and misleading.
* Backpack Search: Eddings argued for the first time in his reply brief that the search of the backpack was unlawful, and the evidence found inside should have been suppressed.
The Court’s Reasoning and Decisions
The Tenth Circuit addressed each of Eddings’s arguments:
A. Motion to Suppress:
The court decided the district court was correct in denying the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that the district court did not err in crediting Sergeant Andazola’s testimony. The court found that Andazola’s observations, made in daylight with an unobstructed view, provided probable cause to arrest Eddings for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court also rejected Eddings’s argument that there was no evidence he knew the bag contained a firearm. The court noted that because Eddings did not raise this argument in the district court, it was waived. The court also stated that there was sufficient evidence to infer that Eddings knew a firearm was in the bag, given the exposed barrel and his actions with the bag.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence:
Eddings argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of Count One (possession of the rifle). The Tenth Circuit disagreed, stating there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Eddings knew the bag contained a firearm. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence supported both actual and constructive possession of the rifle. The court explained that by taking control of the bag, Eddings exercised direct physical control over its contents, which the jury could reasonably conclude was a firearm. The court further determined that the evidence, including Eddings’s knowledge of the rifle and his actions in the SUV, supported a finding of constructive possession.
C. Jury Instructions:
The court also upheld the district court’s decision to give the investigative-techniques instruction to the jury. The Tenth Circuit noted that Eddings had not preserved his specific objections to the instruction. The court determined that the instruction accurately stated the law and did not improperly influence the jury. The court also noted that the instructions as a whole correctly instructed the jury on its role.
D. Search of the Backpack:
The court declined to consider Eddings’s argument that the backpack search was illegal because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief. The court stated that the government had no chance to respond to the argument, so it was deemed waived.
Conclusion
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting all of Eddings’s arguments. The court found that Eddings’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding the motion to suppress and the jury instructions.