U.S. v. Beckett
Citation | 724 F.2d 855 |
Decision Date | 27 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-5031,83-5031 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James BECKETT, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Nancy Wiesen Stock, Asst. U.S. Atty., (argued), Kendra S. McNally, Asst. U.S. Atty. (on brief), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Janet L. Levine, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHOY, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
In September 1982, defendant James Beckett was in a hotel room where James Spivey was selling cocaine to an undercover agent. During the transaction, the agent showed Beckett a transparent bag full of cocaine and asked Beckett if he knew what it was. Beckett said yes. The agent then asked him if the cocaine in the bag was the same as that the agent had received in an earlier sample. Beckett said he thought so, but could not be sure. Next, the police entered the room and arrested both Spivey and Beckett. During the subsequent trial, the district court issued the Jewell instruction on conscious avoidance to the jury, and Beckett's only contention on appeal is that it was error to do so. 1
The Jewell instruction allows the jury to find intent if 1) the defendant knew of facts indicating that there was a high probability that he was involved in a drug transaction, and 2) he deliberately avoided learning the truth of the matter. United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 703-04 (9th Cir.1976) (en banc). The theory behind this instruction is "that a person who shuts his eyes to an obvious means of knowledge has sufficient mens rea" to be convicted. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod.L.Rev. 294, 298 (1954).
The instruction is not given in all cases, however, because of the possibility that the jury will be led to employ a negligence standard and convict the defendant on the impermissible ground that he should have known a drug transaction was taking place. United States v. Garzon, 688 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.1982). Accordingly, the instruction should be given only if there is evidence that the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning all the facts in order to have a defense in the event he was arrested and charged. Id.
No such evidence exists in this case. Nothing indicates that the defendant tried to close his eyes or ears to what was happening. Rather, Beckett's statements to the agent--if credited by the jury--would tend to establish actual knowledge; they would not tend to establish that the defendant was consciously avoiding learning that he was involved in a criminal transaction.
We thus find no principled basis for distinguishing this case from Garzon. In Garzon, the only evidence on intent also tended to establish actual knowledge. As a consequence, Id. It was therefore error to issue the Jewell...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Heredia
...avoidance.25 We have repeatedly emphasized this wilfulness requirement, as in United States v. Alvarado, United States v. Baron, United States v. Beckett, United States v. Garzon, United States v. Kelm, and United States v. The majority deviates from this long line of precedent by discardin......
-
U.S. v. Heredia
...avoidance.25 We have repeatedly emphasized this wilfulness requirement, as in United States v. Alvarado, United States v. Baron, United States v. Beckett, United States v. Garzon, United States v. Kelm, and United States v. The majority deviates from this long line of precedent by discardin......
-
U.S. v. de Francisco-Lopez
...or negligently failed to inquire."); United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d 1319, 1324 (9th Cir.1987) (same). Accord United States v. Beckett, 724 F.2d 855, 856 (9th Cir.1984); Murrieta-Bejarano, 552 F.2d at 1326 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) ("The danger is that juries will avoid questions of sciente......
-
U.S. v. Bigelow
...v. Alvarado, 838 F.2d 311 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Pacific Hide and Fur Depot, 768 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Beckett, 724 F.2d 855 (9th Cir.1984). In each of these cases, however, the facts and circumstances indicated either actual knowledge by the defendant or comp......
-
Avoiding Not-So-Harmless Errors: The Appropriate Standards for Appellate Review of Willful-Blindness Jury Instructions
...v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d 1218, 1229 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Sanchez-Robles, 927 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Beckett, 724 F.2d 855, 856 (9th Cir. 1984)). 119. Id. at 941. 120. Id. at 939. 121. Id. at 937, 939. 122. See United States v. Santos, 397 F. App’x 583, 590–91 (......