Opinion
Case No. 8:05-cr-192-T-24TBM.
May 3, 2006
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's oral motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 (Doc. No. 34) and Defendant's Motion for New Trial (Doc. No. 40). The government opposes both motions.
This case proceeded to trial before a jury on February 21, 2006. On February 22, 2006, the jury found the Defendant guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant moved at the close of the Government's case for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, Fed.R.Crim.P., and the Court reserved ruling under Rule 29(b). Rule 29(a) provides that "[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." After careful consideration, the Court finds that the evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain a conviction as to the offense of felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. Accordingly, the Defendant's oral motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 is denied.
Defendant also moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Rule 33(a) allows a court, upon defendant's motion, to vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires. Defendant raises three grounds in support of his motion: (1) insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction; (2) errors in admission and denial of admission of evidence affected Defendant's substantial rights; and (3) modified "Allen" charge given over Defendant's objection resulted in miscarriage of justice. Upon consideration of the motion, the government's response in opposition (Doc. No. 41), and the record, the Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition and neither the Court's evidentiary rulings or giving the modified Allen charge establish that the interest of justice requires a new trial.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1) Defendant's oral motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED.
(2) Defendant's Motion for New Trial under Rule 33 (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.