## Facts

- Police investigated a drive-by shooting and obtained a warrant to search a residence where Drexel Lee Dukes, Jr. lived with his girlfriend.
- During the search, officers found methamphetamine, methamphetamine-manufacturing equipment, several firearms, and two modified industrial mufflers suspected to be homemade silencers.
- The mufflers had been altered so they were unfit for their original industrial purpose and were configured to function as firearm silencers or be readily adaptable for that use.
- Dukes admitted possessing the two devices but claimed he did not know they were designed for “silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”
- Dukes was charged with multiple offenses, including manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing unregistered firearm silencers in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).
- At trial, government experts testified that the modified mufflers functioned as silencers and fell within the National Firearms Act definition of “firearm.”
- A jury convicted Dukes on all counts, including the § 5861(d) unregistered-silencer count.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that the two modified industrial mufflers were “silencers,” and therefore “firearms,” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the mens rea element under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), as interpreted by *Staples v. United States*, requiring knowledge of the characteristics that make the item a regulated “firearm.”

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Dukes’s conviction.
- The court held that expert testimony and the devices’ modifications provided sufficient evidence that the items were silencers under § 5845(a).
- The court held that the jury could reasonably infer Dukes knew the devices had silencer characteristics, even if he denied that knowledge.
- Applying the sufficiency standard, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and declined to reweigh credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) prohibits possession of a “firearm” not registered to the possessor in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
- Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), the definition of “firearm” includes a “silencer” or other device designed or redesigned for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.
- Under *Staples v. United States*, the government must prove the defendant knew of the characteristics that make the item a statutory “firearm,” but need not prove the defendant knew the item was subject to the National Firearms Act or required registration.
- Knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the object’s physical configuration and context of possession, and an appellate court reviewing sufficiency credits reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a § 5861(d) conviction where expert testimony and the physical alterations to industrial mufflers supported a finding that the devices were firearm silencers, and the surrounding circumstances permitted the jury to infer the defendant’s knowledge of the features that made them regulated “firearms,” without requiring proof that he knew of the registration requirement.


United States v. Dukes, 432 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2006)