Opinion ID: 174996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Santana-Pérez

Text: Santana-Pérez challenges only the finding that he had the requisite mens rea. He contends that he could be convicted only on proof that he was aware of and understood the Coast Guard's orders. We agree. The statute penalizes those who knowingly disobey an order to heave-to, a term that ordinarily goes to the defendant's knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 193, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998). The issuance of an order to heave-to is one of the facts constituting the offense in this case. To prove that a defendant knew that an order to heave-to was given, it will typically be necessary to prove that he was aware of the order and comprehended its essential message. Santana-Pérez points to Carpio-Pouret's trial testimony in support of his argument that he lacked the necessary knowledge. Carpio-Pouret testified that he and Santana-Pérez saw the Matinicus 's spotlight but did not hear the orders to stop. In addition, both Santana-Pérez and Carpio-Pouret denied hearing the orders in post-arrest statements given to an immigration official. However, the jury heard substantial testimony undermining the defendants' story. Levecque testified that when he and the crew lit [the defendants] up with a spotlight and started blowing our horn, they kind of turned and obviously looked-looked behind them. I'm surethey looked very surprised. There was testimony that the order to stop was given in Spanish and English over the loud hailer, which was audible at a distance of 100 to 200 feet, and that the defendants' vessel was less than 150 feet from the Matinicus at the time. Further testimony established that the boarding crew repeated the order to stop during its first two passes, which brought the crew within 15 to 25 feet of the defendants' vessel, and that the defendants stopped only when they were warned that force would be used. In addition, Santana-Pérez acknowledged in a post-arrest statement that he saw the flashing lights and admitted: We were ... spotted by the Coast Guard and I tried to outrun them. He acknowledged having been detained on previous occasions (as did Carpio-Pouret) and stated that he did not stop because he was scared and did not want to go to jail. Finally, when Carpio-Pouret was asked, When you saw the Coast Guard boat what happened? he responded, I told [Santana-Pérez] that they were coming. Viewed as a whole, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find that Santana-Pérez heard and understood the orders to stop.