United States v. Boyce

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2014 · Evidence

742 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2014)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsayExcited utterancePresent sense impressionFelon in possessionRestoration of civil rightsFed. R. Evid. 803(1)Fed. R. Evid. 803(2)

Facts

After Sarah Portis called 911 reporting that Boyce had just hit her and had a gun, officers responded within minutes and described her as emotional. While officers were still at the scene, Boyce returned, fled when approached, and Officer Cummings testified that he saw Boyce throw a handgun into a yard; officers recovered the gun and found matching ammunition in Boyce's pocket. Boyce had prior Illinois felony convictions and later received a form letter restoring certain civil rights after completing supervised release on a later unlawful-use-of-a-weapon conviction. While awaiting trial, Boyce urged Portis in letters and calls to say she had lied about him having a gun.

Issue

Whether Boyce's Illinois restoration letter eliminated his predicate felony status for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), whether Portis's statements on the 911 call were properly admitted under hearsay exceptions, and whether Boyce's ACCA sentence was invalid because a jury did not find his prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), a prior felony does not qualify for 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) if the defendant has had civil rights restored, but in this circuit an Illinois restoration letter applies conviction-by-conviction, not to all prior felonies automatically. For Rule 803(2), the proponent must show: (1) a startling event occurred; (2) the declarant made the statement under the stress of excitement caused by that event; and (3) the statement related to the startling event. For Rule 803(1), the statement must describe an event or condition without calculated narration, be based on personal perception, and be made while perceiving the event or immediately thereafter. The fact of a prior conviction need not be submitted to a jury despite Alleyne.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, Nina Alvarez ran barefoot to a neighbor's duplex and called 911 less than two minutes after her former boyfriend shoved her into a wall. Crying and breathing heavily, she told the dispatcher that he had "just hit me" and, when asked whether any weapons were involved, said he had a hunting knife tucked in his waistband as he stormed out.

At his assault trial, Nina does not testify. The prosecution offers the 911 recording for the truth of her statements about the knife. What is the strongest basis for admissibility under the majority opinion's doctrine?

Explanation. The excited-utterance rule requires a startling event, a statement made under the stress of excitement caused by that event, and a statement relating to the event. A victim who calls within minutes, while crying and agitated, after being shoved satisfies the stress requirement. Her statement that the assailant had a knife relates to the incident because it describes the level of danger posed by her assailant during the assault, even if the knife was not used. The majority also makes clear that responses to questions can still qualify, and corroboration is not required for admissibility.