1

21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). 

2

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3382

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * District of Minnesota

*

Sergio Trujillo-Perez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2001

Filed: June 8, 2001

___________

Before MURPHY, LAY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Sergio Trujillo-Perez, was convicted by a jury of one count of

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (meth)1

and one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute meth.2 On
3The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

appeal, Trujillo-Perez argues the district court3 erred by: (1) denying his motion to

suppress his prior incriminating statements; (2) denying his motion to strike out-ofcourt statements by his alleged co-conspirators; and (3) denying his motion for

judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error, we

affirm. 

Prior to trial, Trujillo-Perez filed a motion to suppress incriminating statements

that he made to Minneapolis police officers during the first of two searches of his

apartment. As the police were executing the first search warrant, they saw TrujilloPerez leaving in his vehicle. The police detained him in their squad car while they

searched his apartment. The police found only trace residue of cocaine on a gram

scale. Officer Louis Porras testified that the officers then told Trujillo-Perez that he

"was not under arrest . . . was not going to jail." At that point, Trujillo-Perez's concerns

shifted from the police to his landlord, and he became worried he would be evicted

from his apartment. Trujillo-Perez asked the officers if there was anything they could

do for him to help him keep the lease, and he offered to help them by identifying his

narcotics sources.

The district court found that Trujillo-Perez's statements were voluntarily made,

and therefore were admissible. Although the police officers did not read him his

Miranda warnings, the Supreme Court has made clear that volunteered statements do

not require any warning. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). Here,

Trujillo-Perez practically insisted on incriminating himself even after the police officers

told him he was not being arrested. We believe the district court's factual findings were

not clearly erroneous, and that the district court was correct in determining that TrujilloPerez's statements were made voluntarily. United States v. Makes Room For Them,

49 F.3d 410, 414 (8th Cir. 1995).
-3-

Trujillo-Perez also contends the district court should have stricken the testimony

of Victor Delgado because portions of his testimony referred to out-of-court statements

by his alleged co-conspirators. The government argues these statements were

admissible under the co-conspirator exception of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). For such

statements to be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the government must prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the declarants were

co-conspirators of the defendant; and (3) the statements were made during the course

of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171,

175-176 (1987). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to establish the

existence of a methamphetamine conspiracy involving Trujillo-Perez and the declarants,

and that the drug delivery statements were obviously made in furtherance of the

conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court acted well within its discretion in not

striking these statements. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir.

1994).

Trujillo-Perez also argues the district court erred by not granting his motion for

judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. In considering a

sufficiency challenge, "we view the evidence presented in the light most favorable to

the government, and uphold the verdict if there is substantial evidence to support it."

United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967, 978 (8th Cir. 1999). Here, the government

presented the testimony of the police officers who seized 4.5 ounces of meth near

Trujillo-Perez's bed, along with a gram scale and drug-related notes. In addition, it was

reasonable for the jury to infer that the meeting that Trujillo-Perez facilitated at his

apartment was for the purpose of conducting a meth transaction. Moreover, the police

officers who conducted the first search testified as to the incriminating statements

Trujillo-Perez made to them. In short, the evidence was more than sufficient for the

jury to convict him.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects.
-4-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.