Ambrose Badillo Caudillo, Joe Romero v. United States

Caudillo appeals from his conviction on three counts (two of sale and one of possession), and Romero appeals from his conviction on two counts (both of possession) , charging violations of 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. Appellants were tried and convicted by a jury.

21 U.S.C.A. § 176a prohibits the importation of marihuana, or the receipt, sale or concealment, or the facilitation in any manner of the sale or transportation or concealment of such illegally imported marihuana. It also contains, after a description of the proscribed crime, the following language:

Both appellants urge that the provision above is unconstitutional because there is no rational connection between the statutory presumption and the facts proved thereby. Caudillo alone urges as a second ground that any presumption was defeated as a matter of law by evidence received in rebuttal.

There is an almost identical provision contained in 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 , creating a presumption relating to possession of any narcotic drugs, and a somewhat similar provision in 21 U.S.C.A. § 181 , creating the same presumption with respect to opium prepared for smoking.

The Supreme Court (Yee Hem v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 178 , 45…