In United States v. Vereen, No. 17-11147 (Apr. 5,
2019) (Marcus, Newsom, Anderson), the Court affirmed the defendant's
felon in possession conviction and ACCA sentence.
The defendant's main argument on appeal was that the court
erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the "innocent transitory
possession defense" (ITP). The
Court concluded that this defense was unavailable because 922(g) did not invite
any kind of inquiry into the purpose or timespan of the defendant's possession. That holding was in line with that reached by
the overwhelming majority of the circuits, though the Court observed that the
D.C. Circuit had reached a contrary conclusion where the firearm was obtained
by innocent means, for no illicit purpose, and for a transitory period of time. Applying plain error, the Court also rejected
the defendant's argument that 922(g) was unconstitutionally vague because the Court
had not previously determined whether an ITP defense was available.
As for the ACCA sentence, the Court found that the
defendant's Florida aggravated battery convictions qualified under the elements
clause under Turner. And it held
that the defendant's Florida battery conviction also qualified under the
elements clause because it involved the intentional causation of bodily
harm.
