## Facts

- Alexis Craig drove Kelvin Mondale Newsom to Newsom’s mother’s home.
- While there, an acquaintance arrived in an SUV and agreed to let Newsom take the vehicle to be detailed.
- Newsom drove the SUV and was stopped by police after traffic violations were observed.
- The officer testified that while being followed, Newsom moved around inside the vehicle as if placing something under the seat.
- After the stop and ensuing events, officers found a firearm under the driver’s seat of the SUV.
- Newsom, a convicted felon, denied that the gun was his and suggested it could have belonged to someone else.
- The United States charged Newsom with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924.
- At trial, Newsom called Craig, who testified she had never seen Newsom carry a gun.
- On cross-examination, the prosecution asked Craig whether she knew Newsom had tattoos depicting firearms; she said she did not.
- Over objection, the district court allowed the question as impeachment of Craig’s claim that she had never seen Newsom carry a gun.
- A jury convicted Newsom. The district court sentenced him to 86 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release under a then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime.
- Newsom appealed, challenging (among other things) the sufficiency of the evidence, the tattoo questioning, related jury instructions, and his sentence under United States v. Booker.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Newsom knowingly possessed the firearm found under the driver’s seat (constructive possession) for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to ask a defense witness about Newsom’s firearm-themed tattoos, including whether the questioning violated Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
3. Whether the district court’s instructions concerning other-acts evidence improperly permitted the jury to use the tattoo evidence as propensity evidence.
4. Whether Newsom’s sentence had to be vacated because the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, contrary to Booker.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Newsom knowingly possessed the firearm under a constructive-possession theory.
- The court held that allowing the limited tattoo question on cross-examination was not an abuse of discretion because it served to impeach the defense witness’s testimony and was not unfairly prejudicial.
- The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions regarding other-acts evidence when the instructions were considered as a whole.
- The court vacated Newsom’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the sentence was imposed under a mandatory Guidelines framework, requiring resentencing under Booker’s advisory-Guidelines rule.
- Disposition: conviction affirmed; sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- A sufficiency challenge fails if, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, any rational juror could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Constructive possession may be shown through evidence that a defendant knew of the firearm and exercised dominion or control over it; proximity plus other incriminating circumstances (such as furtive movements or flight) may support the inference.
- A trial court has discretion over the scope of cross-examination, including impeachment of a witness’s claimed knowledge, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- Evidence used to impeach a witness is not improper character evidence merely because it reflects poorly on the defendant; even if Rule 404(b) is implicated, evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose may be admissible.
- Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded only if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; brief, targeted impeachment may be admitted where prejudice is limited.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole, and reversal is not warranted unless the charge, taken together, likely misled the jury.
- After Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; a sentence imposed under a mandatory-Guidelines approach generally requires vacatur and remand absent harmlessness.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Newsom, the Sixth Circuit upheld Newsom’s felon-in-possession conviction, ruling that the evidence supported constructive possession and that the government’s limited tattoo question properly impeached a defense witness without causing unfair prejudice, and it found no instructional error; however, because Newsom was sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines system, the court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing under Booker.


United States v. Newsom, 452 F.3d 593 (2006)