Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/875/772/179425/
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 14:46:37
Document Index: 509081502

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 952', '§ 841', '§ 952', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Luis Ramirez-ramirez, Defendant-appellant, 875 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1989 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Luis Ramirez-ramirez, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Luis Ramirez-ramirez, Defendant-appellant, 875 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1989)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 875 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1989) Argued and Submitted May 5, 1989. Decided May 25, 1989
Appellant Ramirez-Ramirez appeals his conviction for importation of approximately 356 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and Sec. 960, and possession with intent to distribute approximately 356 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Ramirez-Ramirez claims the government needed to prove that appellant knew he possessed 356 kilograms of cocaine rather than 20-30 pounds of marijuana. We disagree and affirm the district court's conviction.
Ramirez-Ramirez was indicted in two counts: importation of approximately 356 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and possession with intent to distribute approximately 356 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Each violation carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of ten years to life.
On February 3, 1988, the district court addressed two issues, among others, in limine. The first issue was whether the government needed to prove that appellant knew the type and amount of the controlled substance in his possession. The second was whether this court's decision in United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 725 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1984), which held that a mistake of fact as to the controlled substance carried was not a defense to knowing possession, applies to this case. The district court found that the government needed to prove only that Ramirez-Ramirez knew he possessed a controlled substance, and the judge accordingly gave the jury a Lopez-Martinez instruction.
Lopez-Martinez is this court's leading authority for the proposition that a defendant charged with importing and possessing a controlled substance need not know "the exact nature of the substance with which he was dealing." Lopez-Martinez, 725 F.2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Davis, 501 F.2d 1344, 1345 (9th Cir. 1974)). Instead, a defendant can be convicted under Sec. 841 and Sec. 960 if he believes he has some controlled substance in his possession.1 Id. at 474-75; accord United States v. Rea, 532 F.2d 147, 149 (9th Cir. 1976) (" [A]n importer of drugs need not know specifically which drug he or she is importing."); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 698 (9th Cir. 1976) (" [A] defendant who has knowledge that he possesses a controlled substance may have the state of mind necessary for conviction even if he does not know which controlled substance he possesses.").
This court has already stated that mistake of fact regarding the kind of a controlled substance is not enough to preclude a finding of knowledge. It has also stated that mistake of fact regarding the amount of a controlled substance will not preclude a finding of knowledge. See United States v. Klein, 860 F.2d 1489, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Normandeau, 800 F.2d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1986). By analogy, then, mistake of fact regarding the location, within a defendant's possession, of a controlled substance also cannot preclude a finding of knowledge.
To allow appellant to escape liability on such a technicality would thwart the intent of the legislators who enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which resulted in stiff mandatory sentences for drug offenders. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). During legislative debate, Senator Kennedy stated:
This interpretation is consistent with both statutes, which require knowing possession of a controlled substance under subsection (a), and refer to different types of controlled substances under subsection (b) for sentencing purposes only. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 960