United States v. Hawkins
776 F.3d 200 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a), joining a charge for being a felon in possession of a firearm with other, unrelated criminal charges is improper when the offenses are not of the 'same or similar character' and the only connection between them is the defendant.
Facts:
- On November 22, 2006, cab driver Reuben King picked up Collin Hawkins, an acquaintance named 'Warren', and an unidentified female.
- After making several stops, King returned to the original parking lot, where Hawkins held a .357 caliber revolver to his head while Warren held a shotgun to the back of his head.
- Hawkins and Warren robbed King of approximately $400, two cell phones, and his car.
- Before leaving, Hawkins told King, 'I’m not going to shoot you ’cause I know you.'
- Seventeen days later, on December 9, 2006, police were investigating an unrelated matter and observed Hawkins near a convenience store tugging at his waistband.
- Upon arresting Hawkins, police recovered a .9 millimeter pistol from his waistband, a different weapon than the one used in the carjacking.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the District of Maryland indicted Collin Hawkins on carjacking (Count I), use of a firearm in a crime of violence (Count II), and felon in possession of a firearm (Count III).
- Hawkins filed a pretrial motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to sever the carjacking counts from the felon-in-possession count, arguing improper and prejudicial joinder.
- The district court denied the motion to sever.
- At a jury trial, Hawkins was found guilty on all three counts.
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Hawkins to an aggregate term of 360 months.
- Hawkins (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 the joinder of carjacking counts with a subsequent, unrelated felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm count violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) when the firearm from the possession charge is different from the one used in the carjacking and the incidents are separated in time?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Agee
Yes, the joinder of the carjacking counts with the unrelated felon-in-possession count violates Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a). The charges are not of the 'same or similar character' as required for proper joinder because the incidents were temporally and factually distinct, involved different firearms, and lacked any common scheme or plan. The only connection between the carjacking and the later firearm possession was the defendant, Collin Hawkins, which is insufficient to support joinder. The court found this misjoinder was not harmless error because it resulted in actual prejudice; evidence of Hawkins's prior felony status and his possession of a different gun on a later date would have been inadmissible in a separate trial for the carjacking. This prejudicial evidence likely had a 'substantial and injurious effect or influence' on the jury's verdict for the carjacking counts, especially since the evidence for those counts was not overwhelming and rested primarily on the testimony of a single witness.
Concurring - Judge Motz
Yes, the convictions on the carjacking counts must be vacated due to the joinder error. The concurrence agrees with the judgment but writes separately to suggest that the Fourth Circuit's own precedent, which takes a permissive approach to admitting evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, may have contributed to the district court's error. A lenient standard for admitting evidence that shows criminal propensity may have led the trial judge to believe that joinder was an efficient and permissible way to handle the charges, blurring the line between proper judicial economy and prejudicial joinder.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of 'same or similar character' joinder under Rule 8(a), particularly in the Fourth Circuit. It establishes that merely involving firearms is insufficient to join distinct and unrelated offenses, especially when one is a status crime like felon-in-possession, which carries a high risk of propensity-based prejudice. The ruling signals that courts must carefully scrutinize indictments that combine unrelated charges, as such joinder cannot be used as a backdoor to introduce otherwise inadmissible and prejudicial character evidence. This precedent strengthens defendants' ability to sever charges where the only link is the defendant, thereby protecting the jury from being improperly influenced by evidence of other crimes.
