United States v. Henry Albert Steeves
525 F.2d 33, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain a conviction for the "receipt" of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), the prosecution must prove that the firearm was received after the effective date of the statute. Additionally, a search warrant is not necessarily stale, even after a significant time lapse, if the items sought are of a durable, non-consumable nature that a person would reasonably be expected to keep.
Facts:
- On June 22, 1974, a bank in Bloomington, Minnesota was robbed by a single gunman.
- Items used in the robbery included a .357 magnum pistol, a black ski mask, and black clothing.
- Investigators found fingerprints belonging to Henry Albert Steeves on a paper bag left at the bank.
- On September 17, 1974, eighty-seven days after the robbery, FBI agents obtained a warrant to search Steeves' home for the items related to the robbery.
- During the search, agents did not find any items listed in the warrant but did find and seize a Belgian-made rifle and a Springfield 30.06 caliber rifle.
- Steeves, a previously convicted felon, had acquired the Belgian rifle in late 1973.
- The Springfield rifle was manufactured before World War II, and there was no evidence as to when Steeves had acquired it.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Albert Steeves was charged in a two-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with unlawful receipt and possession of two rifles as a convicted felon.
- Steeves filed a pretrial motion to suppress the rifles, arguing the search warrant lacked probable cause.
- The district court (trial court) denied the motion to suppress.
- At trial, Steeves argued that the two counts should be merged into a single offense, which the district court rejected.
- A jury found Steeves guilty on both counts, and the court imposed consecutive sentences.
- Steeves (as appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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:
To sustain a conviction for the 'receipt' of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), must the government prove the defendant acquired the weapon after the effective date of the statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Henley, J.
Yes. To sustain a conviction for the 'receipt' of a firearm by a felon, the government bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received the weapon after the effective date of the statute making such receipt illegal. The statute, § 1202(a)(1), became effective on October 22, 1968. For the Springfield rifle, the government failed to prove that Steeves received it after this date. If he received it prior to the effective date of the Act, he committed no crime. The burden is on the government to prove every element of the offense, which includes proving the act occurred when it was proscribed by law. Because the government offered no evidence as to when the Springfield rifle was acquired, it failed to meet its burden of proof, and the conviction on that count was plain error. The conviction on the count for the Belgian rifle is affirmed, as evidence showed it was received in 1973, well after the statute's effective date. The court also held that the 87-day delay in obtaining the search warrant did not render it stale because the items sought (a pistol, clothing) were durable and not inherently incriminating, thus it was reasonable to believe they might still be in the defendant's home.
Analysis:
This case highlights the critical distinction between the offenses of 'possession' and 'receipt' of a firearm by a felon, clarifying that multiple receipts on different occasions constitute separate offenses. More significantly, it reinforces the fundamental principle that the government carries the burden of proving every element of a crime, including that the criminal act occurred after it was statutorily prohibited. This decision prevents the retroactive application of criminal statutes and serves as a reminder to prosecutors that they cannot rely on presumptions to fill gaps in their evidence regarding the timing of an alleged offense. The court's analysis on warrant staleness also provides a useful framework, emphasizing that the nature of the items sought is a key factor in determining the reasonableness of a delay.
