Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/943/56/85962/
Timestamp: 2019-07-24 08:37:10
Document Index: 450940117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 1291', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 15']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mesfin Seyoum, Defendant-appellant, 943 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1991) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1991 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mesfin Seyoum, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mesfin Seyoum, Defendant-appellant, 943 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued Oct. 1, 1990. Submitted Nov. 1, 1990. Decided Sept. 9, 1991
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, POOLE, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON, District Judge* .
Mesfin Seyoum, a physician, appeals his conviction by jury trial for sixty counts of distributing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Seyoum contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on each count; (2) the district court erred by admitting evidence of his flight to England and (3) the district court erred by instructing the jury on flight and consciousness of guilt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
On October 29, 1986, Mesfin Seyoum was indicted by a federal grand jury on eighty-four counts of unlawfully distributing drugs by writing prescriptions outside the usual course of medical practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). On November 23, 1987, Seyoum was arraigned on a first superseding indictment charging him with sixty counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1).
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) provides that "except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally (1) to ... distribute ... a controlled substance." 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Physicians are liable under this section "when their activities fall outside the usual course of professional practice." United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 124 (1975). See also United States v. Kaplan, 895 F.2d 618, 620 (9th Cir. 1990) (fact that physician failed to provide physical examinations and expert testimony that physician's actions were outside course of professional practice provided sufficient evidence that physician knowingly distributed controlled substances); United States v. Boettjer, 569 F.2d 1078, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978) (Schedule II prescriptions not issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a physician acting within the scope of his practice, if knowingly or intentionally issued, may form the basis for criminal liability pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 976 (1978).
Flight immediately after the commission of a crime, or immediately prior to trial, is admissible to support an inference of guilt. United States v. Hernandez-Miranda, 601 F.2d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1979). Of critical importance is whether the defendant knew of the accusations against him at the time of flight. Id. at 1107.
Second, the flight evidence was proper because there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Seyoum was not simply on vacation. The government demonstrated that Seyoum abandoned his home in Los Angeles and worked in England as a doctor under an assumed name and had in his possession a false identification document. It has been held by other circuits that flight and efforts at concealment or falsification of identity may be admitted at trial as bearing upon the guilt of the accused, provided there is adequate factual support. See United States v. Grandmont, 680 F.2d 867, 869 (1st Cir. 1982) (district court did not err by admitting evidence and by instructing jury that flight or concealment after accusation of a crime may be considered in determining guilt or innocence where defendant's flight occurred after he was served a grand jury subpoena and he was told that he was a suspect in a bank robbery); United States v. Khamis, 674 F.2d 390, 395 (5th Cir. 1982) (testimony that defendant, a Jordanian national, was carrying an alien registration card bearing correct face but false name was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt); United States v. Boyle, 675 F.2d 430, 432 (1st Cir. 1982) (evidence that a defendant checked into hotel using aliases and false identification cards six days after robbery was properly admitted to show consciousness of guilt). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Seyoum's flight to show his consciousness of guilt.
The record reveals that a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 was brought before the district court on November 30, 1987 and was denied without prejudice on that same date. However, no Rule 29 motion was brought after the close of all of the evidence. The government contends that Seyoum should be foreclosed from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence because he failed to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. This contention lacks merit. When the defendant has failed to move for a judgment of acquittal both at the close of the government's case and at the close of all the evidence, we review the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. See United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir. 1989). "A plain error is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights." United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d at 777. Accordingly, we will review Seyoum's sufficiency of evidence claims under the "plain error" standard
The district court's stipulated flight instruction is quoted in Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 15.08 (1977). This particular instruction has been approved by this court. See United States v. Grieser, 502 F.2d 1295, 1299-1300 (9th Cir. 1974)