United States v. Dolores Pauline Rea

Good Law
532 F.2d 147·1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12412
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 197674-3459California831 words

Opinion

Opinion

Defendant, who was apprehended at the San Ysidro checkpoint crossing the border with approximately five pounds of heroin in her automobile, appeals from the resulting conviction.

The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the instructions regarding defendant’s knowledge of what substance, if any, she was importing (or possessing); asserts a defect in the sentencing procedure; and contends that the sentence itself is unconstitutional. None of the points is well taken.

Defendant was charged with illegally importing ( 21 U.S.C. § 960 ) and possessing with intent to distribute ( 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1)) the heroin which the border police found secreted in her automobile. The trial judge read the indictment in two counts and instructed the jury as to the elements of the offense in similar language. The jury sent the judge a note indicating some confusion on the second element of the first count. The jury want- ed to know if the element “knowingly caused the importation” required a finding that defendant knew she had heroin in her car or whether a finding that defendant knew she had a controlled substance in the car would be sufficient. After the judge had repeated his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.