United States v. John Angus Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1992 WL 54925, 957 F.2d 835, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6337 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant 'uses' a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) when they trade the firearm in exchange for drugs, as the weapon facilitates the transaction by serving as currency.

Facts:

John Angus Smith possessed a MAC-10 machine gun and a silencer.
The machine gun had been modified to fire in a fully automatic mode capable of dispensing 950 rounds per minute.
Smith kept the firearm in a black case where ammunition was readily accessible.
Smith attempted to trade the MAC-10 and silencer to another party in exchange for cocaine.
During this interaction, Smith did not fire, brandish, or display the weapon in a threatening or offensive manner.
Smith admitted to possessing the gun but contended the trade was not a 'use' of the weapon.

Procedural Posture:

The government charged Smith with using a firearm during a drug trafficking felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in federal district court.
Smith filed motions to suppress fingerprint evidence and to sever counts of the indictment.
The district court denied Smith's motions.
Smith was convicted of the offenses in the district court.
Smith appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 defendant 'use' a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) when he attempts to barter the weapon in exchange for illegal drugs rather than using it for offensive or defensive purposes?

Opinions:

Majority - Edmondson

Yes, the court held that trading a firearm for drugs constitutes 'use' under the statute because the exchange facilitates the drug transaction. The court reasoned that the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) does not limit 'use' to offensive or martial applications. Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's contrary interpretation in United States v. Phelps, the court determined that specific intent to use the weapon as a weapon is not required. Instead, the court relied on the precedent set in United States v. Poole, which established that 'use' exists if possession is an integral part of the offense. In this context, the firearm functioned as the currency for the deal; therefore, the trade facilitated the drug trafficking crime, satisfying the statutory requirements.

Analysis:

This decision represents a significant expansion of federal firearm statutes by adopting a broad interpretation of the word 'use.' By declining to follow the Ninth Circuit's narrower interpretation—which required an intent to use the gun as a weapon—the Eleventh Circuit established that firearms serve a criminal purpose merely by being an item of economic value in a drug trade. This creates a circuit split (later resolved by the Supreme Court in Smith v. United States) regarding whether the passive barter of a weapon triggers the mandatory minimum sentencing of § 924(c)(1). For future cases in this jurisdiction, any facilitation of a drug crime involving a gun, even non-violent facilitation, falls under the statute.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. John Angus Smith (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"