UNITED STATES v. DAVIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-16No. No. 19-30178

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Davis's conviction, finding no clear error in the competency determination and no abuse of discretion in admitting the prior acts evidence.

Jens Randall Davis was convicted of illegal firearm possession as a felon under federal law and appealed on two grounds. First, he challenged the trial court's determination that he was mentally competent to stand trial, arguing the court should have relied more heavily on his expert's opinion. The appellate court found no clear error because the trial judge properly weighed testimony from a Bureau of Prisons psychologist who had directly observed Davis over time against the defense expert who had minimal contact with him, and the judge's own observations of Davis's courtroom behavior supported the competency finding.

Second, Davis objected to the admission of evidence showing he had attempted to obtain a firearm through another person about a month before his arrest. The court determined this evidence was admissible because it demonstrated his intent and knowledge regarding firearm possession, was timely, and was supported by witness testimony. The probative value of showing Davis's prior efforts to obtain a gun was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in allowing this evidence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the trial court properly found the defendant competent to stand trial despite expert disagreement
Whether evidence of attempting to obtain a firearm was properly admitted under Rule 404(b)
Proper weight given to different sources of evidence in competency proceedings

Procedural posture

Davis appealed his felony conviction for unlawful firearm possession, challenging the trial court's competency finding and its evidentiary rulings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Jens Randall Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

He challenges the district courts finding of competency and admission of “other acts” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding Davis competent to stand trial. The court properly credited the Bureau of Prisons’ psychologist over the defenses expert because she and Bureau of Prisons staff had interacted with and observed Davis. She also reviewed his medical and legal records and interviewed his family members. This evidence supported her conclusion that Daviss mental health issues stemmed from his drug use and resolved shortly after he detoxed. The court also properly relied on its own observations of Daviss courtroom conduct and correspondence, which were consistent with the Bureau of Prisons’ experts opinion. While Davis refused to cooperate with the experts’ examinations, courts are not limited to examination results and may consider other evidence, including “the defendants irrational behavior, his demeanor in court, and any prior medical opinions on his competence.” United States v. Gastelum-Almeida, 298 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002). Such evidence supported the courts determination here.

Davis contends that the district court ignored evidence of his incompetence, but the courts order belies this contention. It shows that the court carefully considered and gave germane reasons for discounting the defense experts opinion, the defense counsels concerns, and aspects of Daviss medical history. For example, the defense expert deemed Davis incompetent despite opining that he could not reach a professionally-sound conclusion without an evaluation. Also, unlike the Bureau of Prisons’ expert, the defense expert did not interact with Davis beyond Daviss immediate refusal to speak with him. Thus, when weighed against the Bureau of Prisons’ experts report and Daviss own behavior and communications, the court appropriately found this contrary evidence less persuasive.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence that Davis sought to obtain a firearm through a colleague. First, this evidence was material because it tended to show Daviss intent to possess a gun and provided a strong inference that Davis knowingly possessed a gun. See United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth the four-part test of admissibility under Rule 404(b)). Second, the evidence was not too remote in time, as the conversation in question took place just one month prior to the charged offense. Third, the testimonial evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Davis made the request. See id. at 1283 (providing that “the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient”). Fourth, attempting to possess a firearm and subsequently possessing one are very similar acts. And finally, the evidences probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact under Rule 403.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those necessary to explain our decision.