Court Opinion

ID: 2963767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:55.716783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.909183
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1712

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     LUIS ALZATE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                               ______________

                                 ____________________

            Normand S. Zalkind with whom Zalkind,  Rodriguez, Lunt & Duncan is
            __________________           __________________________________
        on brief for appellant.
            Margaret F.  Curran, Assistant United  States Attorney, with  whom
            ___________________
        Sheldon  Whitehouse,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Edwin  J.  Gale,
        ___________________                                   _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, are on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 27, 1995
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.     Defendant  Luis   Alzate  appeals   his
                 ___________

            conviction for possessing cocaine with intent  to distribute,

            21  U.S.C.     841(a)(1) and  (b)(1)(B), contending  that two

            errors in  the jury  instructions relating to  his entrapment

            defense  warrant reversal.  As Alzate failed to object at the

            time the  instructions were given,  we review only  for plain

            error.

                 1.   One element of  entrapment is  that the  government

            have instigated the defendant's conduct.  E.g., United States
                                                      ____  _____________

            v.  Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 468 (1st Cir. 1994).  Alzate claims
                _______

            that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury

            that   the  actions   of  the   FBI's  paid   informant  were

            attributable   to   the   government.      The   government's

            responsibility for the informant was not in dispute at trial,

            and Alzate understandably sought no instruction.

                 Nevertheless,  on appeal Alzate  relies upon  an earlier

            dictum of this court that where the  government concedes that

            the  actions   of  its  informer  are   attributable  to  the

            government, the jury should be so  instructed.  United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Annese, 631 F.2d 1041,  1048 (1st Cir. 1980).  In  Annese,
               ______                                             ______

            the trial  judge had  confused matters by  instructing jurors

            that they must  determine whether  the "inducing"  individual

            was  an agent  for  the government,  even  though no  dispute

            existed as to  that issue.   Annese certainly  does not  hold
                                         ______

            that it  is reversible  error to  forego the instruction  now

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            claimed  necessary where,  as  here, no  such instruction  is

            sought and there is no indication of prejudice.

                 Ordinarily, a  claimed error  to which no  objection was

            made at trial  will not  be considered without  a showing  of

            likely effect on the outcome.  United States v. Olano, 113 S.
                                           _____________    _____

            Ct. 1770, 1777-778  (1993).   Here, we have  every reason  to

            think that the jury clearly understood that the informant was

            acting  as  a   government  agent.     Undisputed   testimony

            established that  the informant  was paid by  the government,

            received instruction from FBI agents, and regularly  reported

            to  the FBI.   Indeed, the prosecution's  own closing remarks

            conceded  that the  inducer "was  a paid  FBI informant"  who

            arranged the drug  transaction "on  behalf of the  FBI."   On

            these  facts we  find no  prejudice, even  assuming that  the

            dictum in Annese should be extended beyond the peculiar facts
                      ______

            of that case.

                 2.    The  other  element  of  the  standard  entrapment

            instruction  requires  the   government  to  show   that  the

            defendant, if induced to commit the crime, was predisposed to

            do  it before  the government  approached  him.   Gifford, 17
                                                              _______

            F.3d.  468.  The instructions here so advised the jury in the

            conventional manner.  Among  other references, the judge told

            the jury that the entrapment defense applies when a defendant

            "who has no previous intent to commit a crime is persuaded to

            do so by the Government through  its agents."  The court also

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            said that, for an entrapment claim  to prevail, the defendant

            must  be "not predisposed to engage in such conduct" and that

            the entrapment  defense would not apply  "[i]f the Government

            proves the Defendant was ready and willing to break the law .

            . . ."

                 The subtlety  now relied upon  by Alzate  is that  under

            Jacobson  v. United States, 503  U.S. 540, 549  & n.2 (1992),
            ________     _____________

            the government cannot prove predisposition if the defendant's

            willingness to  commit the  crime was itself  manufactured by

            the government in  the course of  dealing with the  defendant

            before he committed  the crime  charged.  We  think that  the

            first  of  the  instructions  quoted  above--referring  to  a

            defendant  with "no previous intent to commit a crime" who is

            "persuaded . .  . by the Government"--does  convey the notion

            that the question posed was whether Alzate did  have criminal

            intent before  the government  persuasion occurred.   While a
                   ______

            more  precisely tailored  instruction  might well  have  been

            suitable  if specially sought, such refinements tailoring the

            language to the situation  require that the judge  be advised

            of the request.  We  do not think that there was  plain error

            in the charge.

                 We  also have  little reason to  think that  the precise

            phrasing of the instruction affected the outcome.  Alzate did

            testify that he was repeatedly badgered by the informant, but

            his  claims were not entirely borne out by what was recorded.

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            Moreover,  Alzate,  who had  a beeper  with  him when  he was

            arrested, also was found  to have in his house  an electronic

            scale, a kit for testing cocaine including a chemical used to

            perform  the test, and a  small amount of  cocaine.  Although

            Alzate  offered the  jury  explanations for  the cocaine  and

            other  paraphernalia,   it  was  easily  within   the  jury's

            discretion to disbelieve him.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -5-
                                         -5-