Court Opinion

ID: 9496957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:39:34.52887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:54.349952
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority in affirming the convictions of Elvia Rios (Rios) and Eleodoro Lopez-Uria (Lopez-Uria). I write separately, because I conclude Isidro Serrano-Lopez (Serrano-Lopez) was entitled to have a “mere presence” instruction submitted to the jury.
A. Mere Presence Theory of Defense
The majority opinion believes the theory of defense for all defendants was focused on the two elements of constructive possession-knowledge and control. Stvpra at 12. Serrano-Lopez focused his defense theory solely on his alleged mere presence. Consistently throughout trial, Serrano-Lopez specifically argued he was arrested and charged based on his mere presence in the vehicle, his mere proximity to concealed drugs discovered in the vehicle, and his mere association with the vehicle’s occupants and owner. During closing argument, Serrano-Lopez’s counsel argued to *640the jury that “[mjere presence is not evidence of possession.” Serrano-Lopez’s counsel also tendered to the court a proposed jury instruction, which correctly stated the law: “Mere physical proximity to contraband is insufficient to convict a person of possession with intent to distribute.” The district court denied the requested language, noting the court’s instruction defining “possession with intent to distribute” is the circuit’s model jury instruction, and the model instruction is adequate. Model Criminal Jury Instruction of the Eighth Circuit § 6.21.841A.
B. Mere Presence Instruction
In this circuit a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense, if there is evidence to support the instruction, and if the instruction contains a correct statement of the law. United States v. Gonzales, 90 F.3d 1363, 1371 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Long Crow, 37 F.3d 1319, 1323 (8th Cir.1994). We review de novo the question of whether sufficient evidence existed to submit an affirmative theory of defense, but we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal to give a “theory of defense” instruction. Id.; United States v. Davis, 103 F.3d 660, 668 (8th Cir.1996).
The propriety of giving a “mere presence” or “mere proximity” instruction depends on what the government proved about the defendant’s alleged involvement in the crime. The First Circuit has noted:
The “mere presence” defense has become, at one and the same time, both the last haven of the innocent and the last refuge of the scoundrel. Although courts have found it applicable in certain situations, the mere presence defense is not so ubiquitous as to envelop every drug-trafficking case in which the government lacks direct evidence of a defendant’s complicity. The defendant’s presence at a place where contraband is found may or may not be purely coincidental. The attendant circumstances tell the tale-and the culpability of a defendant’s presence hinges upon whether the circumstances fairly imply participatory involvement. In other words, a defendant’s “mere presence” argument will fail in situations where the “mere” is lacking.
United States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 678 (1st Cir.1993) (internal citation omitted). Thus, the dispositive question is whether the government’s case against Serrano-Lopez rested upon mere presence, mere proximity, or mere association.
I conclude the government’s case against Serrano-Lopez rested almost exclusively on Serrano-Lopez’s presence in the front passenger seat; his proximity to drugs concealed inside the dash, rocker and kickers panels; his association with the vehicle’s occupants; and his admission that he knew who owned the vehicle. The government’s case adduced no particularized evidence that Serrano-Lopez knew drugs were concealed inside the vehicle or that he exercised or intended to exercise dominion or control over the drugs. In its opening statement, the government never discussed Serrano-Lopez other than identifying him as the front seat passenger. In its summation, the government only argued Serrano-Lopez was in the front passenger position; he knew who owned the car, and the name he gave corresponded with the name on the registration; and he had a driver’s license, from which the jury could reasonably infer Serrano-Lopez at some point must have driven the car during the trip from Los Angeles to Nebraska. After defense counsel delivered their closing arguments, with Serrano-Lopez’s counsel arguing mere presence, the government in rebuttal never addressed Ser*641rano-Lopez’s defense nor even mentioned Serrano-Lopez.
The trial transcripts reflect slim evidence against Serrano-Lopez. In February 2002, Trooper Ayers stopped a vehicle for speeding on Interstate 80 in central Nebraska. Serrano-Lopez was seated in the front passenger seat. After Trooper Ayers spoke to Rios, the driver, the trooper attempted to speak to Serrano-Lopez. Trooper Ayers asked Serrano-Lopez a series of questions: (1) whether Serrano-Lopez knew the name of the driver and the name of the vehicle’s owner; (2) where the vehicle had departed from and its destination; (3) whether the vehicle stopped in Arizona; (4) whether Serrano-Lopez had any identification; and (5) why Serrano-Lopez was traveling to Omaha.
At trial, Trooper Ayers testified Serrano-Lopez spoke little English, and Trooper Ayers conceded he did not understand everything Serrano-Lopez told him, and Serrano-Lopez did not understand everything the trooper was saying. Trooper Ayers testified Serrano-Lopez told him the driver’s name was “Sylvia”; the vehicle owner’s name was “Gonzalo”; the four occupants were traveling from Los Angeles to Omaha; the vehicle had not stopped in Arizona; and he was traveling to Omaha to visit a relative named Pablo. Trooper Ayers also testified Serrano-Lopez produced a valid California operator’s license and, when arrested an hour later, Serrano-Lopez did not act surprised or ask the reason for his arrest. Testimony from other law enforcement witnesses established Serrano-Lopez was the third person picked up in California, that he knew the backseat passengers, and he worked at an International House of Pancakes.
On appeal, the government contends its case against Serrano-Lopez is not a mere presence case, arguing a jury could reasonably infer Serrano-Lopez’s knowledge of the drugs from his admission that he knew the name of the vehicle’s owner coupled with Serrano-Lopez’s inconsistent statements. The government’s brief expends three sentences on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Serrano-Lopez’s conviction:
Trooper Ayers stated that Serrano-Lopez was the only one who knew the name of the owner of the car. Serrano-Lopez was also the only defendant other than Rios to have an operator’s license. Thus, a reasonable jury could infer not only that Serrano-Lopez and Rios drove and controlled the Nissan and therefore had possession of the cocaine, but that they knew the drugs were hidden there.
The evidentiary issue of whether these are reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence or unreasonable inferences used to bridge gaps in the government’s proof descends us into polemics. Regardless, the government presented de mini-mus evidence, and even less argument, supporting its theory that Serrano-Lopez knew of and exercised control, or intended to exercise control, over the concealed drugs.
The government also contends in its brief that Serrano-Lopez made an inconsistent statement to Trooper Ayers, but fails to explain how or why Serrano-Lopez’s alleged statement about coming to Omaha to visit his relative named Pablo was inconsistent. The government must presume we can reasonably infer the inconsistency. The government presented no evidence Serrano-Lopez changed or recanted this statement. At the suppression hearing, Serrano-Lopez’s counsel pointed out to Trooper Ayers that when the trooper questioned Serrano-Lopez during the traffic stop, Trooper Ayers had not, as he believed, asked Serrano-Lopez in Spanish why the occupants were traveling to Oma*642ha, but had instead asked Serrano-Lopez why he was traveling to Omaha.
The record establishes the driver’s first name was “Elvia,” which rhymes with “Sylvia,” the name Trooper Ayers believed Serrano-Lopez stated; the vehicle’s registration was issued to an individual with the surname “Gonzalo”; the vehicle had departed from the Los Angeles area destined for Omaha; and, for all the government knew, Serrano-Lopez was traveling to Omaha to visit a relative named Pablo. The jury heard no evidence that Serrano-Lopez knew drugs were secreted inside the vehicle, that contraband was found on his person, that he had received payment for making the trip, that he used drugs or had been charged previously with a drug offense, or that he, at any time during the journey, drove the vehicle. Serrano-Lopez’s mere presence theory of defense has an adequate foundation in the evidence.
The final inquiry is whether the jury instructions, as submitted to the jury, adequately and correctly covered the substance of the requested instruction. See United States v. Manning, 618 F.2d 45, 48 (8th Cir.1980) (reversing district court and noting the instructions given did not cover the substance of the defense). The district court denied Serrano-Lopez’s requested “mere presence” language, opting instead to instruct the jury only on “possession with intent to distribute” and “possession,” using two model instructions. See Model Criminal Jury Instructions of Eighth Circuit §§ 6.21.841A & 8.02. From the record, it appears the district court did not consider submitting a separate instruction on “mere presence.”
At least two of our sister circuits have addressed the issue of whether a separate “mere presence” instruction is needed in addition to a model instruction defining “possession.” Reviewing a longer and more detailed, but similarly worded, “possession” instruction, the Fifth Circuit held the “possession” instruction obviated the need for a separate “mere presence” instruction, because “possession” requires a finding of intent to exercise dominion or control over contraband. United States v. Prudhome, 13 F.3d 147, 149-50 (5th Cir.1994).
The Second Circuit also held a “mere presence” instruction was unnecessary because the definitional instruction of “actual and constructive possession” required the jury to find the defendant intended to exercise dominion or control over the contraband and added “possession could not be established by accident or mistake.’’ United States v. Vasquez, 82 F.3d 574, 577 (2d Cir.1996) (emphasis added). The jury instructions in Vasquez further instructed:
[T]he person who’s knowingly in possession, his possession occurs voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident. The defendant simply may not be convicted of possession of a firearm if he did not intend to possess it.

Id.

In relatively few cases, such as this one, where the government presents an exceptionally slim evidentiary case of constructive possession against one or more defendants, the Eighth Circuit model “possession with intent to distribute” and model “possession” instructions, standing alone, do not adequately convey a “mere presence” defense theory to which a defendant is justly entitled. Unlike the model aiding and abetting and model conspiracy agreement instructions, the model “possession with intent to distribute” instruction contains no express language stating that “merely being present at the scene of an event, or merely acting in the same way as others or merely associating with others, does not prove that a person” had knowledge of the contraband and intended ■ to possess it. Compare Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Eighth *643Circuit §§ 5.01, 5.06B, with §§ 6.21.841A. Nor does the model “possession” instruction inform jurors that possession cannot be established by “accident or mistake.” Compare Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Eight Circuit § 8.02, with Vasquez, 82 F.3d at 577.
During its deliberations, the Serrano-Lopez jury grappled with the model “possession with intent to distribute” and “possession” instructions. The jury submitted four written questions to the district court, three of which concerned the legal concept of “possession.” The jury first asked, “Would constructive possession, given the second element, be relevant?” Next, the jury asked, “Must it be actual possession to satisfy all essential elements?” Thirty-five minutes later, the jury asked, “What is [the] definition of ‘Controlled Substance’?” and “What is [the] definition of ‘Dominion’?” The district court replied to the jury’s first two questions, advising the jury that all the instructions were relevant, and all the essential elements could be satisfied by finding the defendant’s possession was constructive. The district court declined to define the terms “controlled substance” and “dominion” for the jury. Given the jury’s patent difficulty in understanding and applying critical concepts and key terms in the model “possession with intent to distribute” and “possession” instructions, hindsight indicates a “mere presence” instruction probably would have assisted the jury.
“A district court’s refusal to provide a requested instruction warrants reversal only if the refusal prejudices the defendant.” United States v. Davis, 237 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir.2001). It could be argued the district court’s refusal to give a mere presence instruction did not prejudice Serrano-Lopez, because his counsel was permitted to argue the defense theory. An oral statement by counsel, even if repeated several times during the course of a two-day trial, does not have the force and effect of a jury instruction delivered by the court. The absence of a conforming instruction may tell the jury, by its omission, that defense counsel’s arguments are not the law.
The trial transcript reveals the district court received a note from the jury stating, “We have reached a verdict on two of the defendants. We are in a deadlock on the other two. What are the next steps?” With the approval of all counsel, the district court received the jury’s two verdicts, finding both Urias-Lopez and Rios guilty of possession with intent to deliver five kilograms or more of a substance containing cocaine. Later, the jury returned a guilty verdict against Serrano-Lopez and a verdict of acquittal against the fourth defendant. I cannot, with any confidence, conclude Serrano-Lopez was not substantially prejudiced by the court’s refusal to instruct the jury on mere presence.
Consequently, I would reverse Serrano-Lopez’s conviction and remand his case for a new jury trial with a mere presence instruction.