Felon in possession (FIP) of a firearm; Whether the indictment failed to state that defendant knew he was a felon who was not permitted to carry a firearm; Rehaif v. United States; United States v. Cor-Bon Custom Bullet Co.; United States v. Martinez; United States v. Olive; United States v. Gatewood; Plain error review; United States v. Vonner; Molina-Martinez v. United States; United States v. Dominguez Benitez; United States v. Hobbs; Effect of the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the “knowledge-of-status” element; United States v. Conley (Unpub. 6th Cir.); United States v. Balde (2d Cir.); United States v. Burghardt (1st Cir.); United States v. Miller (2d Cir.); United States v. Reed (11th Cir.); United States v. Hollingshed (8th Cir.); United States v. Benamor (9th Cir.); Sufficiency of the evidence to convict; Jackson v. Virginia; United States v. Ferguson; United States v. Blakeney

The court rejected defendant-Ward’s claim that he was entitled to relief under Rehaif on his FIP conviction where nothing suggested that he “was unable to present an adequate defense or was otherwise not put on notice of the crime that he was charged of committing.” Further, in an issue of first impression in this circuit, it held that the district court did not commit reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the “knowledge-of-status element” where there was clear evidence Ward knew he was a felon and no indication that the jurors’ decision would have been different had they received the instruction. Finally, it concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Ward first argued that his indictment failed to properly allege the crime charged because it did not allege that he knew he was a felon who was not entitled to possess a firearm. The court rejected his claim, noting that the purpose of the requirement that an indictment allege all of the elements of the charged offense is “‘to ensure that an accused is reasonably informed of the charge made against him so that he can prepare a defense.’” It held that Ward’s substantial rights were not affected. There was no evidence that he did not have adequate notice of the charged offense or that he was deprived of his ability to properly prepare his defense. Additionally, the court noted that even though Rehaif had yet to be decided, Ward could have challenged the indictment as did the defendant in Rehaif. It also rejected his argument that he was improperly convicted because the district court failed to instruct the jury on the knowledge-of-status element. It found no indication that, had the jury been so instructed, the outcome would have been different. The court noted that even though “‘the stipulation of a prior felony does not automatically establish knowledge of felony status, it is strongly suggestive of it.’” Also, there was more than sufficient evidence that the government could have provided as to his criminal record. The court then joined other circuits by holding that “where there is clear evidence in the record from which to infer that the defendant knew he was a felon, failure to instruct the jury does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights or the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.” Lastly, it held that there was sufficient evidence “for a rational juror to conclude that Ward had possessed a firearm on the date in question” and that he knew he was a felon when he did so. Affirmed.