Court Opinion

ID: 2964496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:31.636864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.167926
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                     ____________

          No. 96-1036

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  CARMELO MONTA EZ,
                                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                     ____________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The opinion of  this Court  issued on January  28, 1997,  is
          amended as follows: 

               On Page 7, second line from bottom, delete the "s" after the
          apostrophe in "Monta ez."

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1036

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  CARMELO MONTA EZ,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           and Barbadoro,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               David L. Martin, by Appointment of the Court, for appellant.
               _______________
               Margaret E. Curran,  Assistant United States Attorney,  with
               __________________
          whom Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney, and  Zechariah
               ___________________                                _________
          Chafee,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  were  on brief  for
          ______
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 28, 1997
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

                    BARBADORO,  District  Judge.    A  jury  found  Carmelo
                    BARBADORO,  District  Judge.
                                _______________

          Monta ez  guilty of  distributing  and  conspiring to  distribute

          crack cocaine.   Because we  conclude that  the district  court s

          entrapment  instruction did  not adequately  apprise the  jury of

          Monta ez  theory  of  defense, we  vacate both   convictions  and

          remand for a new trial.  

                                          I.
                                          I.

                    The   government  presented  evidence   at  trial  that

          Monta ez  sold an  undercover  agent an  ounce  of crack  cocaine

          ( crack ). Monta ez  conceded that he distributed  the crack, but

          contended that he had been entrapped by Cheryl Lauber, one of the

          agent s informants.1

                    Monta ez testified  that he  met  Lauber while  smoking

          crack at a friend s house and thereafter smoked crack with her on

          a regular basis.   He and Lauber later lived  together for a time

          with Lauber s children  at a friend s  apartment.  Several  weeks

          after  they met, Lauber told  Monta ez that she  needed money and

          asked him  to buy her two kilos of  cocaine so that she could re-

          sell it at  a higher price.  Monta ez responded  by claiming that

          he did  not know where to buy such a  large amount of cocaine and

          that he did not have enough money to buy even an ounce.  

                              
          ____________________

          1  Not surprisingly, the government offered considerable evidence
          to  refute Monta ez  version of the events leading to his arrest.
          We  describe the  evidence from  Monta ez  perspective  since the
          sufficiency of the court s  entrapment instruction must be judged
          from  this standpoint.  United  States v. Flores,  968 F.2d 1366,
                                  ______________    ______
          1367 (1st Cir. 1992).

                                         -2-

                    Lauber kept insisting that Monta ez buy cocaine for her

          to resell.  Her persistence finally paid off after Lauber and the

          children were  expelled from their friend s  apartment and Lauber

          claimed that she would  lose her children unless she  could raise

          enough money  to buy furniture for an apartment and a car to take

          the  children  to  school.     On  October  21,  1994,   Monta ez

          reluctantly agreed to find someone to sell them an ounce of crack

          the  next day so  that Lauber could  resell it to a  friend for a

          profit. 

                    The  next  afternoon, Lauber  and the  undercover agent

          drove  up to the apartment  where Lauber s friend  was living and

          waited in  the agent s van for  the crack to arrive.   The seller

          eventually  appeared  and  went  into the  apartment.    Monta ez

          emerged  a short  while  later and  delivered  the crack  to  the

          undercover agent.  He was arrested two months later.  

                    Monta ez testified at trial that he  made no money from

          the crack sale and that he participated only to help Lauber.

                                         II.
                                         II.

                    The district  court properly instructed  the jury  that

          the  defense   of  entrapment  has  two   components:    improper

          government  inducement and  lack of  predisposition.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1996);  United States v.
          ______    _____                                  _____________

          Gendron, 18 F.3d 955,  961 (1st Cir.),  cert. denied, 115 S.  Ct.
          _______                                 ____________

                                         -3-
                                          3

          654 (1994).  Only  the court s instruction on the  former element

          is in dispute.2 

                    When  charging  the jury  on  improper  inducement, the

          court stated:

                      [I]mproper inducement goes beyond providing
                    an ordinary opportunity to commit a crime. It
                    is  typically  excessive   pressure  by   the
                    government   upon   the   defendant  or   the
                    government taking advantage of an alternative
                    noncriminal type  of motive.  And  I think it
                    might help you if I give you some examples of
                    improper  inducement.   These may  be tactics
                    such as intimidation  and threats against the
                    defendant's   family,   calling  every   day,
                    threatening defendants,  engaging in forceful
                    solicitation and dogged insistence  until the
                    defendant  gives  in   and  capitulates   and
                    commits the crime.

                      Now,  what I've just said are only a few of
                    course,   a  few   examples  that   help  you
                    understand a government  overreaching of  its
                    having acted unfairly by employing methods of
                    persuasion   or   inducement   that   created
                    substantial risk  that such an  offense would
                    be committed by a person other than those who
                    are ready to commit.

          After deliberating for approximately forty-five minutes, the jury

          sent  the court  a question, asking   If someone is  induced by a

          government informant, is this considered as possible entrapment? 

          The  court responded  by  repeating its  previous instruction  on

          inducement  and by stating that   Cheryl Lauber was  acting as an

                              
          ____________________

          2   A defendant  is entitled to  an entrapment instruction  if he
          produces  sufficient  evidence  of  lack  of  predisposition  and
          improper inducement to  raise[ ] a reasonable doubt as to whether
          he   was  an  unwavering  innocent  rather  than  an   unwavering
          criminal.     Joost,  92 F.3d  at 12,  (quoting United  States v.
                        _____                             ______________
          Hern ndez, 995 F.2d 307,  313 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,  510 U.S.
          _________                                 ____________
          954  (1993)(citations   omitted)).    The   government  does  not
          challenge Monta ez  right to an instruction on entrapment.

                                         -4-
                                          4

          agent  of the government . . .  .   Both times Monta ez asked the

          court to illustrate  how an  appeal to sympathy  can serve as  an

          improper inducement  by using several examples  drawn from United
                                                                     ______

          States  v. Gendron, 18 F.3d at 962.3   The court s failure to use
          ______     _______

          these  examples  serves  as  the basis  for  Monta ez   principal

          argument on appeal.

                                        III.  
                                        III.  

                    We  have  repeatedly  recognized that  a  defendant  is

          entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense if sufficient

          evidence  is produced  at trial  to support  the defense  and the

          proposed  instruction  correctly  describes the  applicable  law.

          United States v. McGill,  953 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1992); United
          _____________    ______                                    ______

          States v. Zeuli, 725 F.2d 813, 817 (1st Cir. 1984); United States
          ______    _____                                     _____________

          v. Flaherty,  668 F.2d 566, 581  (1st Cir. 1981).   However , the
             ________

          trial court need not repeat the requested instruction verbatim as

          long as  the charge as a whole adequately informs the jury of the

          viability of the defense.    United States v. DeStefano,  59 F.3d
                                       _____________    _________

          1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d 1, 8
                                  _____________    __________
                              
          ____________________

          3  Monta ez  asked the  court to include  the following  examples
          from Gendron:
               _______

                    (4) play[ing] upon  defendant's sympathy  for
                    informant's  common narcotics  experience and
                    withdrawal   symptoms;  (5)   play[ing]  upon
                    sentiment of one former war buddy for another
                    to get liquor (during prohibition); . . . (7)
                    [telling] defendant that she (the  agent) was
                    suicidal and in desperate need of money."  

          Gendron,  18  F.3d  at  961-62  (citations  omitted)  (quotations
          _______
          omitted). 

                                         -5-
                                          5

          (1st  Cir. 1994).    Moreover, the  court   is not  obligated  to

          instruct  on  every  particular  that  conceivably  might  be  of

          interest  to the  jury.    DeStefano,  59  F.3d at  3  (citations
                                     _________

          omitted).  Therefore, a trial court s failure to deliver a theory

          of  defense instruction will result  in reversal only  if (1) the

          requested instruction correctly describes the applicable law; (2)

          sufficient  evidence   is  produced  at  trial   to  warrant  the

          instruction; (3)  the charge  actually delivered does  not fairly

          present  the  defense; and  (4)  the  requested instruction   was

          essential  to  the  effective  presentation   of  the  particular

          defense.   United  States v. Passos-Paternina, 918  F.2d 979, 984
                     ______________    ________________

          (1st  Cir. 1990), cert. denied,  499 U.S. 982,  and cert. denied,
                            ____________                      ____________

          501 U.S. 1209, and cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1210 (1991).
                             ____________

                    The  government cannot  dispute  the  validity  of  the

          proposed instruction in this  case as it was drawn  directly from

          our opinion  in Gendron.  See  Gendron, 18 F.3d at  961; see also
                          _______   ___  _______                   ________

          United  States v.  Gifford,  17 F.3d  462,  468 (1st  Cir.  1994)
          ______________     _______

          (government   agent s   arm-twisting    based  on   sympathy  can

          constitute  improper   inducement).    Nor   can  the  government

          successfully argue that the evidence did not warrant the proposed

          instruction, because a reasonable jury  could have concluded from

          the evidence  presented at  trial that Lauber  improperly induced

          Monta ez  to distribute the crack by claiming that she could lose

          her children if  the sale  did not go  through.  Accordingly,  we

          focus  our  analysis  on the  adequacy  of  the district  court s

          improper inducement  charge and  the government s claim  that any

                                         -6-
                                          6

          deficiency  in  the charge  did  not  seriously impair  Monta ez 

          ability to present his defense. 

                    The  district  court informed  the  jury  that improper

          inducement  can result  from  either  excessive  pressure by  the

          government  upon   the  defendant  or   the  government s  taking

          advantage of  an alternate  non-criminal type  of  motive.    The

          government  contends  that since  this  is  undeniably a  correct

          statement of law, see Gendron, 18 F.3d at 961, the court gave the
                            ___ _______

          jury enough information to permit  it to evaluate Monta ez  claim

          that Lauber entrapped him by an appeal to sympathy.  We disagree.

                    Of  course, the  district  court has  a  great deal  of

          latitude in  formulating a  charge.   But taken  as a whole,  the

          examples  given were  all  either coercion  examples or  involved
                                ___

          abstractions ( dogged  insistence ) rather far from  the examples

          of inducement by an undue appeal to sympathy, which the defendant

          expressly requested and which were more pertinent to his defense.

          By omitting  any  sympathy   examples, the  trial court  may well

          have  left the jury with the mistaken impression that coercion is

          a  necessary  element of  entrapment and,  in  this case,  such a

          misunderstanding could well have affected the outcome.

                    We also reject the  government s claim that the court s

          failure  to  give the  requested  instruction  did not  seriously

          undermine Monta ez   ability to  present his defense.   Monta ez 

          only realistic hope of an acquittal was to leave the  jury with a

          reasonable doubt  about whether Lauber improperly  induced him to

                                         -7-
                                          7

          participate in the drug deal by appealing to his sympathy for her

          alleged plight.   Since  the court s  charge failed  to otherwise

          adequately inform  the jury of  Monta ez  theory of  defense, the

          convictions cannot stand. 

                                         IV.
                                         IV.

                    For the  reasons discussed  above, we vacate  Monta ez 

          convictions and remand for a new trial.4

                              
          ____________________

          4  Since we have  vacated the convictions, we do not  address the
          other arguments Monta ez raises on appeal. 

                                         -8-
                                          8