Case: 21-11267 Document: 00516600958 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 6, 2023
No. 21-11267
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Nygel Dejon Freeman,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-96-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
Nygel Dejon Freeman appeals his jury trial conviction for possession
of a firearm as a convicted felon under
(g)(1), 924(a)(2). *
He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed a firearm.
Because Freeman preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we review the claim de novo but afford “great deference” to the
*
At the time of Freeman’s offense and sentencing,
(5th Cir.
2017) (quotation omitted). We evaluate the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable inferences in support of
the verdict. United States v. Terrell,
(5th Cir. 2012). The
sufficiency standard remains the same whether the evidence is direct or
circumstantial: “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Huntsberry,
(5th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).
Although the Government presented no direct evidence of
possession, a reasonable jury could conclude that Freeman possessed the
firearm. The jury saw videos of Freeman running from the police—first in
his car and then on foot. And it heard testimony that suspects who run often
have narcotics or weapons in their possession. United States v. Martinez,
(5th Cir. 1999) (“Evidence of an accused’s flight is generally
admissible as tending to establish guilt.”). The Government also presented
evidence that police recovered the gun in a field about twenty feet from
Freeman’s flight path. The jury heard testimony that a grown man could
easily have thrown the two- or three-pound gun this distance. And officers
testified that Freeman gave up the chase not far from where they located the
gun. The jury also learned that there was a major storm the night before the
incident that would have left certain marks on a gun, and then it heard
testimony that the gun did not bear any such markings. Finally, witnesses
familiar with the area testified that they had never seen anyone enter the field
and they would not expect to find a weapon there. From this evidence, the
jury could easily infer that the firearm was only in the field for a brief time,
and that Freeman threw it into the field before surrendering to police.
Our highly deferential review compels us to conclude that “the
totality of the evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable
2
Case: 21-11267 Document: 00516600958 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2023
No. 21-11267
doubt.” United States v. Nieto,
