Can the Fact that Daryl Had a Glock Yesterday Be Used to Prove that He Had an AK-47 Today?

When a defendant is charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, may the prosecution introduce, under Rule 404(b), evidence that the defendant previously possessed a different firearm? Courts nationally are divided. The Court of Appeals of North Carolina just ruled in State v. Williams that the answer is no. National background. As noted above, there is a split of authority on this question. Compare, e.g., United States v. Garner, 396 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (ruling such evidence admissible because the fact that the defendant was previously in possession of a firearm “made it more likely that [he] was in knowing possession of the loaded handgun found beneath his seat”), with, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 321 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2003) (ruling such evidence inadmissible because it did not establish the defendant’s opportunity to possess weapons or any modus operandi of the defendant). Facts of Williams. The issue began its way to North Carolina’s appellate courts when a Goldsboro officer responded to a “shots fired” call at an apartment complex. As he arrived, he saw Daryl Williams and two other men standing next to a car. Williams put something in the car and shut the door while the other men walked away. The officer shined a flashlight into the car and saw an AK-47 on the back seat. Further investigation revealed that (1) Williams had the keys to the car in his pocket; (2) several items belonging to Williams were in the car; and (3) there was a [...]