Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02188/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Mendoza-Felix
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Suk~ tit• ,r " ArperJs T<'!"'th r.; ..... ~u '. t 

JAN 2 2 1991 

1.0BERT L. HOECKFI 

) Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RAUL MENDOZA-ACOSTA and ) 

) 

SERGIO MENDOZA-FELIX, ) 

) 

) 

Defendant/Appellants. ) 

) 

Nos. 89-2186 

and 89-2188 

(D.C. Nos. CR 89-123-01-JB 

and 89-123-02-JB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, EBEL, Circuit Judge, and 

NOTTINGHAM**, District Judge. 

· Defendants Raul Mendoza-Acosta and Sergio Mendoza-Felix 

appeal their convictions for possession with intent to distribute 

more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. 21 u.s.c. §§ 841(a)(l), 

841(b)(l)(b) and 18 u.s.c. S 2. They contend that the trial court 

improperly denied their motion to suppress evidence and that there 

was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could reach 

a verdict of guilty. Raul Mendoza-Acosta additionally claims that 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing doctrines of the law of the case, res 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Edward W. Nottingham, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 1 
• 

' he was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process and 

against self-incrimination when the government presented evidence 

showing his post-arrest silence regarding the marijuana. For the 

reasons set forth below, we reject the defendants' arguments and 

affirm the lower court's rulings. 

I. FACTS 

On February 27, 1989 at 3:00 a.m., appellants Raul MendozaAcosta and Sergio Mendoza-Felix stopped their 18-wheel tractortrailer at a routine border patrol checkpoint on Highway 54 near 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. Appellants, Mexican nationals, told the 

border agent on duty that they were hauling eggs to St. Louis, and 

they provided bills of lading as well as legitimate border 

crossing cards authorizing them to travel in the United States. 

As the agent inspected appellants' paperwork, a second officer 

with a trained inspection dog happened upon the rig, at which time 

the dog immediately sniffed the right corner of the truck and 

signaled for the presence of contraband. The border agents 

subsequently directed the truck to a secondary inspection site and 

proceeded with a more thorough search of the trailer. At this 

time, the agents opened the truck and discovered 550 boxes labeled 

eggs, most of which were covered with dust and taped shut. 

Noticing that certain boxes towards the ar.ea which the dog had 

signaled were closed with different tape than the other boxes, the 

agents opened the boxes and uncovered approximately 1495 pounds of 

marijuana. The other boxes did in fact contain eggs, though it 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 2 
.. was later determined that the eggs were between six months to a 

year old and not fit for human consumption. 

Appellants were subsequently indicted for possession with 

intent·to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. They 

thereupon moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an 

illegal search, contending that the agents lacked probable cause 

to make the search. The motion was denied and the case was tried 

to a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty for both defendants 

II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 

Appellants contend that the district court erred in denying 

their motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from the 

tractor-trailer. According to appellants, "the government's sole 

probable cause was the alerting of a dog which apparently had been 

trained to alert on contraband or people ••.• [A] dog trained to 

alert on people or contraband cannot provide probable cause to 

search a vehicle." Br. of Raul Mendoza-Acosta at 19, 26 (emphasis 

in original). We disagree with appellants' assertion and affirm 

the trial court's finding of probable cause. 

In reviewing a denial of a Motion to Suppress, the trial 

court's findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Cooper, 733 F.2d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 467 U.S. 1255 (1984). We agree with the trial court that 

the initial license check was a valid Terry stop. The dog sniff 

at that time did not materially extend the length of the initial 

stop. Moreover, probable cause for a more thorough search was 

established when the dog twice alerted to the same spot at the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 3 
right outside corner of the trailer. By that time, the agents had 

probable cause to believe that appellants were transporting drugs 

or illegal aliens in the trailer. We therefore reject appellants 

contention that the physical evidence should have been suppressed. 

III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 

Appellants next contend that the convictions should be 

overturned because there was insufficient evidence to support the 

jury's verdict of guilty. They argue that the evidence presented 

at trial was "as consistent with the innocence of the appellants 

as it [was] with their guilt or at the most raise[d] a suspicion 

of guilt." Br. of Raul Mendoza-Acosta at 21, quoting Brumbelow v. 

United States, 323 F.2d 703~ 705 (10th Cir. 1963). 

In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to 

support a verdict of guilty, an appellate court must inquire into 

whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States 

v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1455 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1971)). Thus, "[t]he evidence 

both direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable 

inferences to be drawn therefrom -- is sufficient if, when taken 

in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury 

could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." 

United States v. Price, 795 F.2d 61, 62-63 (10th Cir. 1986). We 

conclude that it was not unreasonable for the jury to reach its 

verdict, and we therefore affirm appellants' conviction. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 4 
j 

The sole issue at the trial below was wheth~r appellants had 

knowledge of the marijuana that they were transporting. We 

believe that the evidence presented at trial -- "both direct and 

circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be 

drawn therefrom" -- was sufficient to support the jury's finding 

that appellants were in fact aware of the drugs they were 

carrying. Specifically, we cite the following facts brought out 

at trial: (1) the driver admitted to being present when the truck 

was loaded, R. Vol. I at 63, 109, 119, 147; (2) appellants were 

evasive and contradictory in their testimony as to where they 

picked up the truck, R. Vol. I at 179, 183; (3) the destinations 

specified on appellants' bills of lading were false and did not 

exist, R. Vol. I at 188, R •. Vol. II at 261, 264; (4) the company 

specified on the bill of lading as the source of the eggs, Egg 

Country, was false and did not exist, R. Vol. I at 162, 189, R. 

Vol. II at 271; (5) the trucking company listed on the bills of 

lading was not a valid business and the alleged owner of the 

company, Jesus Castaneda, could not be located, R. Vol. I at 163; 

(6) the license plates on the tractor and trailer were invalid, R. 

Vol. I at 166; (7) the insurance forms found in appellants' log 

books were no longer valid and had obviously been tampered with, 

R. Vol. I at 194-196; (8) the log books and documents located in 

the log book and on the person of the appellants indicated that 

appellants had driven this very rig previously for the same 

alleged trucking company, R. Vol. I at 204-207; (9) the eggs 

contained in the trailer were more than six months old and unfit 

for human consumption, R. Vol. II at 256; (10) the driver was 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 5 
observed to be extremely nervous when the truck was being 

searched, R. Vol. I at 132; (11) the driver curiously replied to 

agents' questioning that he would have abandoned the rig had it 

broken'down, R. Vol. I at 184, R. Vol. II at 230; (12) appellants 

claimed to be carrying eggs from Mexico or Texas all the way to 

St. Louis and Philadelphia, an extremely unlikely shipping 

scenario, R. Vol. II at 255. 

Although it might be possible to explain each of these 

factors individually in a manner "consistent with the innocence of 

the appellants," the sheer number of suspicious circumstances here 

surpasses the critical mass which supports the jury's verdict of 

guilty. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that 

"there's a wealth of factual material before the Court from which 

the jury could directly find or infer that these two defendants 

were in possession of marijuana 

it." R. Vol. II at 275. 

for purposes of distributing 

IV. THE USE OF MENDOZA-ACOSTA'S SILENCE AT TRIAL 

Appellant Raul Mendoza-Acosta finally contends that his 

constitutional rights were violated at trial by an alleged 

reference to his right to remain silent. Specifically, appellant 

refers to the following trial testimony of Agent Borst: 

Initially I just asked (appellant] if he wanted to make 

any statement about the marijuana. and he didn't want to 

make any statements about that •.. I also asked him 

that he needed to give me some information about his 

background, name, address, personal history information. 

And he agreed to do that •••• And then during that 

time I had asked him, you know, where were you going 

with the eggs, and he indicated that he was going to St. 

Louis, drop them off at the address on the bill of 

lading. At that time, I picked up the bill of lading. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 6 
'I 

•• and I said are you going to this address here on the 

bill of lading, and he confirmed that he was and that he 

had picked up the eggs from Egg Country. 

R. Vol. I at 183 (emphasis added). 

Although it is possible that the first sentence of Borst's 

remarks could be taken as a comment on appellant's right to remain 

silent, United States v. Mora, 845 F.2d 233 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 488 U.S. 995 (1988), we need not resolve that issue here 

since, even if it were an impermissible comment on appellant's 

right to remain silent, we conclude that it amounted to nothing 

more than harmless error. According to United States v. Massey, 

687 F.2d 1348, 1353 (10th Cir. 1982), courts should consider the 

following factors in determining whether a comment is harmless: 

(1) the use to which the prosecution puts the postarrest silence; 

(2) who elected to pursue the line of questioning; (3) the quantum 

of other evidence indicative of guilt; (4) the intensity and 

frequency of the reference; and (5) the availability to the trial 

judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give 

curative instructions. 

We believe that the comment made by Borst was at the very 

worst an inadvertent, unsolicited remark which had no effect on 

the jury's verdict. Significantly, the government made no 

reference to appellant's silence in either closing argument or 

rebuttal. Moreover, the appellant at no time objected to the 

statements, thereby depriving the court of an opportunity to give 

curative instructions. Since we have already determined that 

there was a "wealth of factual material • from which the jury 

could find or infer [appellant's guilt]," we conclude that the 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 7 
complained of remarks were harmless and could have had no impact 

on the jury's verdict. United States v. Palmer, 766 F.2d 1441 

(10th Cir. 1985). Appellant's request for a new trial is 

accordingly denied. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the lower court 

and uphold the appellants' convictions. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-2188 Document: 010110080359 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 8