United States v. Bowling
770 F.3d 1168 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court violates a defendant's due process rights by excluding evidence that is relevant to establishing a mistake-of-fact defense, particularly when the defendant's knowledge is a required element of the charged offense.
Facts:
- On December 15, 2011, James Bowling was charged in Indiana state court with felony strangulation and several misdemeanors.
- At his initial appearance on February 9, 2012, Bowling was informed that the felony charge carried a potential prison sentence of more than one year.
- In early July 2012, the state prosecutor extended a plea offer to Bowling's counsel to dismiss the felony charge in exchange for a guilty plea to misdemeanor offenses.
- On July 14, 2012, while the state charges were still pending, Bowling attempted to purchase a firearm from Fields Outdoor Adventures, a federally licensed dealer.
- On the required ATF Form 4473, Bowling answered "no" to the question asking if he was under indictment for a felony.
- On the same form, Bowling provided a former address listed on his driver's license where he maintained an office, which was two blocks from his actual residence.
- On October 23, 2012, Bowling pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct, and the state dismissed all other charges, including the felony strangulation charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government charged James Bowling in the U.S. District Court with two counts of making a false statement to acquire a firearm.
- Prior to trial, Bowling filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the underlying state charges and offered a stipulation, which the government rejected and the trial court denied.
- During the trial, the court sustained the government's objection, preventing Bowling's counsel from cross-examining the state prosecutor about a plea offer.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that providing a false address was material as a matter of law.
- A jury convicted Bowling on both counts.
- Bowling (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court violate a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense by preventing defense counsel from cross-examining a witness to elicit testimony that could establish a reasonable mistake of fact regarding an element of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Manion, J.
Yes. A trial court violates a defendant's constitutional due process rights when it prevents the defendant from developing and presenting a mistake-of-fact defense that is essential to negating the mens rea of the crime. The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), requires the government to prove the defendant 'knowingly' made a false statement. A mistake-of-fact defense directly challenges this knowledge element. Bowling's only viable defense was that the prosecutor's plea offer led him to mistakenly but reasonably believe he was no longer under a felony information. The excluded testimony from the prosecutor about this plea offer was therefore highly relevant and necessary for Bowling to present this defense. Preventing this line of questioning infringed upon Bowling's fundamental rights to confront witnesses and present a defense. This error was not harmless because it deprived Bowling of his only defense, and it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have convicted him had the evidence been admitted.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental due process right of a defendant to present a complete defense, especially when their mental state is a crucial element of the offense. The court emphasizes that a defendant is entitled to have the jury consider any defense with 'some foundation in the evidence, however tenuous.' The ruling also clarifies the application of Old Chief in § 922(a)(6) cases, holding that when a defendant’s knowledge (not just their status) is at issue, the government is not required to accept a stipulation, but the trial court must still exercise its gatekeeping function to exclude unfairly prejudicial details of the underlying charges.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bowling