Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01953/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01953-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anna Irene Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH II~ED 

UNITED STATES'COURT OF APPEALS United Statee Court of Appeab Tenth Circuit · 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 201989 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee; 

v. 

ANNA IRENE MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 87-1953 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of. Colorado 

(D.C. No. 86-CR-155-5) 

Sander N. Karp of Karp & Dodge, Denver, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant. 

William D. Welch and Kathryn Meyer, 

torneys (Michael J. Norton, Acting 

District of Colorado, with them on 

Drug Task Force, Denver, Colorado, 

Appellee. 

Assistant United States AtUnited States Attorney, 

the brief), Mountain States 

Attorneys for PlaintiffBefore* McKAY and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District 

Judge. 

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. 

* Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States District Judge for the 

District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 1 
In a thirty-three count superseding indictment, Anna Irene 

Martinez and nineteen others were charged with various drugrelated offenses. Specifically, all defendants were charged in 

Count 1 with conspiring among themselves, and with others, from 

June, 1984, to June 11, 1986, to distribute heroin and to possess 

heroin with an intent to distribute, in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 

84l(a)(l). In Count 5 Anna Irene Martinez was charged with a· 

series of distributions of heroin from March, 1985 through June, 

1985, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l). In Count 15 Anna 

Irene Martinez and "Pie" Nunez were charged with the use of a 

telephone on May 29, 1985, to facilitate the possession and 

distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 3(b) and 18 

u.s.c. § 2. 

A jury convicted Anna Irene Martine~ on Counts 1 and 15, but 

. acquitted her on Count 5. She was sentenced to ten years 

imprisonment on the conspiracy conviction, and four years on Count 

15, with the latter sentence to be served concurrently with the 

former sentence. She now appeals her convictions and the 

sentences imposed thereon. On appeal, the government concedes 

that because of faulty jury instructions the conviction under 

Count 15 must be reversed, and the sentence imposed under that 

count vacated. Accordingly, the present appeal only concerns Anna 

Irene Martinez' conviction on the conspiracy count, and matters 

urged on appeal which relate to Martinez' conviction on Count 15 

need not be addressed. 

Martinez' first argument is that the district court erred in 

denying her repeated motions, made both before and during the 

~2-

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 2 
trial, that she be tried separately from Blackie and Corky Nunez. 

She asserts that she should not have been tried with the Nunez 

brothers who were prison convicts during the alleged conspiracy 

since she had no contacts whatsoever with any drug ring at the 

state penitentiary. Indeed, permeating Martinez' argument that 

she should have been granted a severance is a belief that there 

was insufficient evidence to show that she conspired with any of 

her nineteen co-defendants to possess or distribute heroin and 

counsel suggests that the jury could only have convicted her on a 

"guilt by association" basis. 1 Counsel argues that because of 

this lack of incriminating evidence against Martinez, the district 

court erred in denying Martinez' renewed motion for a severance of 

her trial from that of the Nunez brothers. We do not share 

counsel's view of the government's evidence and find no. error in 

the district court's denial of Martinez' several requests that she 

be tried separately. 

The trial court's decision whether to sever is made within 

its sound discretion, and will not be reversed absent a strong 

showing of prejudice. United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 537 

(10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 426, 434 (10th 

Cir. 1988). In this case, the government's evidence established 

Martinez' participation in the conspiracy. Anthony Nunez, the 

teenage son of "Pie" Nunez, testified that Martinez was frequently 

at the "Pie" Nunez residence and at "Pie's" nearby used car lot, 

1 The fact that three of the six defendants who went to trial were 

acquitted, even though tried with Blackie and Corky Nunez, would 

seem to deny the argument that there was any "guilt by association." United States v. Evans, 542 F.2d 805, 815 (10th Cir. 

1976). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 3 
and that he had seen his father give Martinez several balloons of 

heroin in exchange for money. Also, Stephen Torrey, who was 

introduced to ''Pie" Nunez by Martinez' husband, testified that he 

had purchased heroin from Martinez, and that on one occasion he 

saw Martinez purchase $6,000 worth of. pure heroin from "Pie'' 

Nunez. 2 Counsel argues that the testimony of both Anthony Nunez 

and Stephen Torrey was "demolished" on cross-examination, which 

established that Anthony Nunez was a teenager with a history of 

emotional problems and that Stephen Torrey was a drug addict. 

Such impeaching facts, however, only posed a credibility issue to 

be resolved by the fact finder and were properly left for the jury 

to consider. 

Furthermore, it was not essential to the government's case 

that it establish that Martinez conspired with every one of her 

nineteen co-defendants. It is enough if the government 

established that she conspired with one of her co-defendants, possessing knowledge of the existence of the larger organization. 

Certainly the evidence showed, prima facie, that she conspired 

with "Pie" Nunez. So the fact that she herself was never at the 

state penitentiary dealing face-to~face with "Blackie" or Corky 

Nunez is not a defense. As a general proposition, if a person 

conspires with another knowing that the latter is conspiring with 

another person or persons to commit the same offense, he is guilty 

of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he 

2 The fact that Martinez was 

preclude a conviction on Count 

acquitted 

1. 

-4-

on Count 5 does not 

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 4 
even knows their identity. See Model Penal Code § 5.03 comment 

(Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985). 

As this court has indicated in United States v. Watson, 594 

F.2d 1330, 1340 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 840 (1979), 

Where large quantities 

distributed, each major 

to know that he is 

venture, the success 

performance by others 

not even know. 

of narcotics are being 

buyer may be presumed 

part of a wide-ranging 

of which depends on 

whose identity he may 

See also Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 559 (1947). 

In this case, there was sufficient evidence, both from testimony 

and recorded telephone conversations, for the jury to conclude 

that Martinez knew that she was involved in a larger organization. 

Counsel also asserts that Martinez should have been granted a 

severance because of "Blackie" Nunez' conduct at trial, which 

ultimately resulted in · his ousting from the courtroom, and, additionally, because the jury was fully aware that the Nunez brothers, Martinez' co-defendants, were inmates at the state 

penitentiary. Neither of these grounds compelled a severance. 

Once a joint trial is commenced, the granting of a mistrial to one 

of the defendants and ordering that he, or she, be retried 

separately would only be justified by highly irregular and 

prejudicial circumstances. United States v. Esch, 832 F.2d 531, 

537 (10th Cir. 1987). The court instructed the jury that the 

absence of a defendant should not be considered. The "diversity 

of the verdicts returned by the jury" indicates that the jury 

complied with this instruction. United States v. Evans, 542 F.2d 

805, 815 (10th Cir. 1976). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 5 
( 

Counsel's final ground for granting Martinez a severance is 

that Count 1 alleged one conspiracy and the government's' evidence 

showed two conspiracies. That is not our view of the evidence. 

See our opinion in the companion case, United States v. Corky 

Nunez, No. 87-1976. 

The other matters urged on appeal for reversing Martinez' 

conviction on the conspiracy charge have been considered, but none 

would justify a reversal.3 

Judgment affirmed as relates to Count 1, the conspiracy 

charge. Judgment reversed as relates to Count 15, and, on remand, 

the sentence imposed on that conviction shall be vacated. 

3 These other matters include sufficiency of the affidavit 

requesting a wiretap on "Pie" Nunez' home, alleged argument during 

closing argument, errors and vagueness in the indictment and bill 

of particulars, and certain evidentiary matters unique to 

conspiracy trials. In each instance, a close reading of the 

record reveals that there was no prejudicial error. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 6 
No. 87-1953 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANNA IRENE MARTINEZ 

MCKAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: 

I must dissent from that portion of the court's opinion that 

depends on its conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to 

prove a single conspiracy. In addition to the reasons set out in 

my dissents in United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011 (1978); 

United States v. Watson, 594 F.2d 1330 (1979); and United States 

v. Dickey, 736 F.2d 571 (1984), I must add my observation that 

when it comes to the evidence showing the rim that connects the 

spokes (Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 s. Ct. 1239, 

90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); and United States v. Butler, 494 F.2d 1246 

(10th Cir. 1974)), in my view we are not faithfully applying the 

mandate of Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986), to 

view the evidence "through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden." 

Appellate Case: 87-1953 Document: 01019565547 Date Filed: 06/20/1989 Page: 7