Opinion ID: 769576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Misstatement of the Law During Summation

Text: 54 During closing argument, Cervantes objected that the government misstated the law on possession, but the district court overruled Cervantes' objection. After the trial, Cervantes moved for a new trial based, in part, on the government's purported misstatements at closing argument. The district court denied the motion. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision to deny Cervantes' new trial motion based on the government's misconduct during its closing argument. See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles , 762 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1985). 55 The government made the following statements on possession during its summation: 56 You can infer that if the defendant is the tenant of apartment 3, defendant has physical control over the items that are in that dwelling . . . . 57 So the government establishes physical control by the fact that the defendant is in the apartment on January 7th when the police get there and by the fact that the defendant is the tenant and the user of apartment 3. 58 The definition [of possession] is rather simple. It says that a person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical con trol of it. 59 So by paying the rent, by pretending to be the ten ant of apartment 3, you can safely make the -reach the inference that, yes, he was the tenant at apart ment 3, and as the tenant, he had physical control of the items that were inside that apartment, just like you have physical control over the things . . . 60 (Emphasis added.) 61 The government's closing argument repeatedly stated that the jury could infer from the facts that Cervantes possessed the methamphetamine found in Apartment 3. The government did not state that the jury must infer that Cervantes possessed the methamphetamine. Because a defendant's rental payments can reasonably suggest that the defendant possessed drugs found within that rental property, see Sitton, 968 F.2d at 961, the government did not misstate the law during its closing argument. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cervantes' motion for a new trial, based on the government's statements during its closing argument.