Opinion ID: 1193844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sole Occupancy of a Vehicle

Text: In his brief, Tran states that the district court instructed the jury that if the defendant was the sole occupant of a . . . a[sic] vehicle, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant knew about items in the vehicle. (App. Br. 26 (ellipsis in original) (emphases removed).) Tran observes that the pills at issue here were hidden beneath a vehicle's headliner and argues that the district court's jury instruction was therefore erroneous. For support, he cites to the doctrine, adopted by the several circuits and the model jury instructions, that when contraband is found in a vehicle's hidden compartments, [p]ossession of or control over [the] vehicle [cannot], standing alone, suffice to prove guilty knowledge. United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1236 (5th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Jackson, 55 F.3d 1219, 1226 (6th Cir.1995) (In `hidden compartment' cases, courts have generally required additional evidence indicating knowledge  `circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant.' (quoting United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990)) (emphasis omitted)); United States v. Stanley, 24 F.3d 1314, 1319-20 (11th Cir.1994) (same); Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d at 954 ([C]ontrol of the vehicle . . . does not support an inference of guilty knowledge; it is at least a fair assumption that a third party might have concealed the controlled substances in the vehicle with the intent to use the unwitting defendant as the carrier in a smuggling enterprise.); Sand, Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal Form 56-8 cmt. (In [hidden compartment] cases, most courts will require further evidence [beyond sole occupancy].). This challenge fails, however, because it is based on a serious misrepresentation of the record: The district court did not, in fact, give the instruction about which Tran complains. [1] Because Tran does not challenge the instructions actually given to the jury, we find no reversible error.