United States v. Arturo Gutierrez-Espinosa

Arturo Gutierrez-Espinosa was convicted of unlawfully importing 75 pounds of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a) and 960(a)(1) and of possessing such marihuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). With one exception, appellant’s specifications of error are insubstantial.

The facts observed by the customs agent (the new paint job on appellant’s car, the strong odor of room deodorizer, the trembling of appellant’s hands) were relevant circumstantial evidence of appellant’s knowledge of the presence of the marihuana in the vehicle. Even though the agent’s state of mind was not itself relevant, his testimony that he referred appellant for secondary inspection was admissible and his statement that he took this action because of the facts observed was self-evident and surely harmless.

Evidence as to the value of the contraband was relevant to appellant’s intent to distribute. United States v. Ramirez-Valdez, 468 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. McCarthy, 430 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1970).

We see nothing objectionable in the court’s instruction to the jurors to use common sense in their deliberations. It does not convey to us an…