UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976). CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. JEWELL

532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a conviction of a federal drug abuse law for the transportation and possession of marijuana under 21 U.S.C.S. 841(a)(1), which required possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of the nature of the act, and intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances.

FACTS: Jewell (D) and a friend went to Mexico in a rented car. D testified that while he was in Mexico, he was approached by a man who offered to sell him marijuana. When D refused that offer, the man then asked D if D would drive a car back to the U.S for $100. D looked over the car and found nothing illegal and agreed to drive the car to the U.S. D did see a special compartment when he opened the truck but D did not investigate further. The car contained a secret compartment in which marijuana was concealed. D was stopped at the border and arrested when marijuana was found in the secret compartment. D was arrested and charged with knowingly or intentionally importing a controlled substance and knowingly or intentionally possessing, with intent to distribute, a controlled substance. At trial, D testified that although he knew of the compartment, he did not know that the marijuana was present. The court instructed the jury that 'knowingly' meant voluntarily and intentionally and not by accident or mistake. The court told the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 'knowingly' brought the marijuana into the United States and that he 'knowingly' possessed the marijuana. The court continued: The Government can complete their burden of proof by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the defendant was not actually aware that there was marijuana in the vehicle he was driving when he entered the United States his ignorance in that regard was solely and entirely a result of his having made a conscious purpose to disregard the nature of that which was in the vehicle, with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. D was convicted and appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner