## Facts

- Salvatore G. Monteleone, a longtime firefighter with no prior record, was related to Arlie Brown, a convicted felon.
- Brown attempted to sell a .45 caliber pistol to an undercover ATF agent; agents later seized that pistol from Brown’s residence.
- Monteleone petitioned ATF for return of the gun, claiming ownership and stating he had transferred the gun to Brown so Brown could arrange repairs after it malfunctioned.
- A federal indictment charged Monteleone with knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1).
- At trial, Monteleone called a character witness who testified to Monteleone’s community reputation for truthfulness and lawfulness.
- Over objection, the prosecutor asked the witness whether he knew Monteleone had lied under oath to a federal grand jury, injecting an uncharged allegation of perjury.
- The jury convicted Monteleone; the district court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court committed reversible error by permitting the government to cross-examine a defense character witness with a question asserting uncharged perjury, without an adequate good-faith foundation tied to community reputation.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
3. Whether the jury instructions misstated the meaning of “dispose” under § 922(d).

## Decision

- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the character witness was wholly improper and prejudicial because it lacked an adequate good-faith foundation and likely affected the verdict.
- The court rejected the Commerce Clause challenge and held § 922(d) is within Congress’s commerce power.
- The court upheld the jury instructions defining “dispose” as consistent with governing law.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant offers reputation character evidence, impeachment by “have you heard/are you aware” inquiries about specific misconduct requires a good-faith basis and a proper foundation that the matter bears on reputation in the relevant community.
- Injecting a serious, uncharged allegation through improper character-witness questioning can violate evidentiary limits and constitute reversible error when it prejudices substantial rights.
- 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)’s prohibition on knowingly disposing of firearms to prohibited persons is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
- “Dispose” under § 922(d) is not limited to formal sales; it includes transferring possession or control of a firearm to a prohibited person.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Monteleone’s § 922(d) conviction because the government improperly impeached a defense character witness with an unsupported allegation of grand jury perjury, an error that was not harmless, while also holding that § 922(d) is constitutional and that instructions broadly defining “dispose” are permissible.


United States v. Monteleone, 77 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 1996)