Background
William Charles Brown, Jr., a convicted felon, possessed and fired a pistol during an altercation at a Columbia, South Carolina, nightclub. Brown asserted that an armed security guard had threatened him, his girlfriend, and members of their group, and that he fired several shots into the air because he believed the guard was pursuing his girlfriend’s daughter and her friends with a firearm.
After police arrived, Brown resisted being handcuffed and denied having a weapon. Officers found shell casings that witnesses attributed to him, and five officers ultimately subdued and searched Brown after another struggle. They found the pistol hidden in his pants. The district court denied Brown’s motion in limine seeking permission to present a justification defense. Brown then entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, preserving his right to appeal that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the criminal judgment. Assuming Brown could satisfy the first two elements of the circuit’s four-part justification test—an unlawful and present threat of death or serious injury and no reckless creation of the situation—the court held that he failed to show that he had no reasonable legal alternative once police arrived and controlled the scene.
The court reasoned that any threat had abated when officers secured the area. Brown’s refusal to surrender the firearm, false denial that he possessed it, and physical resistance to the officers’ search were not reasonable responses to the situation. Because Brown’s claim failed under either de novo or abuse-of-discretion review, the panel declined to decide which standard governed review of the district court’s ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant invoking justification for unlawful firearm possession must establish all four elements of the Fourth Circuit’s test, including the absence of a reasonable legal alternative.
- Courts consider whether the defendant retained the firearm longer than necessary after the asserted threat ended.
- Once police arrived and controlled the scene, Brown could not justify concealing the gun, denying possession, and resisting a search.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision underscores the narrow scope of the justification defense in felon-in-possession cases. Even when a defendant initially obtains or uses a firearm in response to a claimed imminent threat, continuing to possess or conceal it after law enforcement has neutralized the danger can defeat the defense.
The opinion also leaves unresolved whether appellate review of a district court’s refusal to permit a justification defense is de novo or for abuse of discretion, because Brown’s challenge failed under either standard.