U.S. v. Haro-Portillo
| Decision Date | 19 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--3449,A,HARO-PORTILL,75--3449 |
| Citation | 531 F.2d 962 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Luis Martinppellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before DUNIWAY and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and BATTIN, * District Judge.
Appellant, Haro-Portillo was found guilty after a jury trial of importing marijuana into the United States from Mexico in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals from the judgment on the verdict and we affirm.
Two issues are raised on appeal, first, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts and, second, that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for a mistrial.
Appellant's testimony was that he was employed as a chauffeur to drive a stake truck with a load of adobe bricks from Sonoita, Mexico, to Tucson, Arizona. On the occasion in question when he reached the Customs Inspection Station at the Lukeville Port of Entry, 247 pounds of marijuana were found in the two saddle gas tanks attached to the frame of the truck.
In a number of cases this Court has held that when one drives a car laden with contraband, there is a substantial basis from which the trier of fact may infer that the driver has knowing possession of the contraband. United States v. Zamora-Corona, 465 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1972). A review of the cases by the court in United States v. Martinez, 514 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1975) discloses that the rule is based upon the thought that the driver exercises dominion and control over his vehicle and its contents from which knowing possession of the contraband it contains may be inferred. The inference here was strengthened by inconsistencies and improbabilities in appellant's story. Appellant argues that he was innocent, but the sufficiency of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704 (1942). Based upon those tests we find the evidence entirely adequate.
When the contraband was discovered appellant was arrested and informed of his rights both in English and in Spanish. Thereafter, Agent Hatch of the Drug Enforcement Administration had a conversation with appellant about the case. When questioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mills
...a selective basis". Bryan argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to strike the testimony. In United States v. Haro-Portillo, 531 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1976), an arrested suspect voluntarily talked to a federal agent for a time, after which he refused to answer any more ques......
-
State v. Lee
...happened and related the course of the conversation until its termination. A similar situation was before the court in U.S. v. Haro-Portillo, 531 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1976), and that court 'When the contraband was discovered appellant was arrested and informed of his rights both in English an......
-
USA. v. Angwin & Khamis
...of nervousness); United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 1988) (vehicle with contraband); United States v. Haro-Portillo , 531 F.2d 962, 963 (9th Cir. 1976) 3. These elements are not meant to be three discrete components, each of which must be fully satisfied for evidence t......
-
State v. Robinson
...as a means of placing appellant's statements in context. Objection to this testimony was properly overruled. United States v. Haro-Portillo, 531 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Lee, Appellant contends that the other two improper references occurred during cross-examination of appellant a......