## Facts

- Los Angeles police officers investigating unrelated activity at an apartment complex approached Apartment 6 after seeing another man run through the courtyard.
- The apartment’s wooden door was off its hinges and the metal security door was ajar; officers saw Earl Anthony Nevils asleep on a couch.
- Two firearms were leaning against Nevils’s body—one on his lap and another against his leg.
- A coffee table about one foot away held baggies of marijuana and ecstasy, cash, a cell phone, watches, and documents.
- Officers entered with weapons drawn, conducted a sweep, and ordered Nevils to the ground as he awoke.
- One officer testified that upon waking Nevils briefly appeared as if he might reach toward his lap, then raised his hands; another described a rapid “startled” movement in which Nevils rolled or moved to the floor.
- A defense witness testified she had brought an intoxicated Nevils to the apartment to sleep and, when she left, no guns or drugs were visible and no other people were present.
- A jury convicted Nevils of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he appealed on sufficiency of the evidence as to knowing possession.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Nevils knowingly possessed the firearms and ammunition required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the panel held the proof did not permit a rational finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Nevils knowingly possessed the firearms and ammunition.
- The panel concluded the government’s case established proximity to the firearms, but not knowledge and control, and that the remaining circumstantial inferences were speculative.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient only if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt; a verdict cannot rest on speculation or conjecture.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government must prove knowing possession; proximity to a firearm, standing alone, does not establish knowledge or the power and intention to exercise dominion or control.
- Ambiguous conduct equally consistent with innocence and guilt (such as a reflexive movement upon abruptly awakening to armed officers) may be insufficient to prove knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Contextual circumstances (nearby drugs, cash, and a high-crime setting) do not substitute for proof that the defendant knew of the firearm’s presence and possessed it, particularly where evidence supports that another person could have placed the firearm near the defendant while unconscious.

## Conclusion

The panel vacated Nevils’s § 922(g)(1) conviction because the record showed firearms touching him while he slept but did not provide non-speculative evidence that he knew of the guns and exercised, or intended to exercise, control over them.


United States v. Nevils, 548 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2008)