People v. Bush
7 Cal. App. 5th 457
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- CHP stopped William Bush for speeding; officers detected strong marijuana odor, saw leafy particles, and found $46,959 bundled and heat-sealed in a trunk suitcase. A narcotics canine alerted to both the car and the cash.
- Papers in the car included receipts, shorthand notes (e.g., "SD"), hydroponics-related purchases, and inconsistent explanations from Bush about the cash (ATM business, mother). Forensic and bank records showed large cash deposits and erased phone texts.
- Detective testimony linked the packaging and electronic/cash transaction patterns to drug sales and to efforts to avoid reporting; Bush did not testify.
- Jury convicted Bush of Health & Safety Code § 11370.9(a) (knowingly receiving/acquiring proceeds from controlled-substance offenses with intent to conceal or avoid reporting) and Vehicle Code § 14601.1 (driving with suspended license). Court sentenced to probation with six months jail and ordered forfeiture and fines.
- On appeal Bush challenged (1) validity of his Faretta self-representation waiver, (2) sufficiency of evidence of intent to conceal the money’s nature/source, (3) whether § 11370.9 applies when the defendant himself sold the drugs, and (4) omission of jury instruction on elements of the underlying drug offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Faretta waiver | Prosecution: record as whole shows Bush was repeatedly warned and knowingly waived counsel | Bush: court failed to advise of all penal consequences (specifically max monetary fine), so waiver was invalid | Waiver valid; repeated, extensive colloquies and form showed knowing/intelligent waiver; any omission (fine amount) harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to conceal nature/source | Evidence (odor, packaging, canine alerts, notes, cash patterns, expert testimony) supports specific intent to conceal nature/source or to avoid reporting | Bush: mere concealment/transportation of cash insufficient; no evidence he intended to conceal that the cash was drug proceeds | Evidence sufficient; packaging and circumstantial evidence permitted inference of intent to conceal smell/source and to avoid reporting/taxes |
| Application of § 11370.9 when defendant is alleged to have sold drugs himself | People: statute applies to "any person" who knowingly receives/acquires proceeds (directly or indirectly) with intent to conceal; definition of "proceeds" includes money acquired directly from violations | Bush: statute should not apply to someone who acquired proceeds by committing the predicate offense; Santos-type argument favors narrowing interpretation | Statute unambiguous and includes proceeds "directly or indirectly" from violations; Santos inapposite; Legislature may criminalize overlapping conduct |
| Jury instruction duty re: elements of underlying drug offense | People: statutory instruction on §11370.9 and example (possession for sale) was sufficient; no sua sponte duty to define elements of an uncharged underlying offense | Bush: court should have instructed jury on elements of unlawful sale of marijuana (the alleged predicate) sua sponte | No sua sponte duty here; even if omission error, it was harmless given overwhelming evidence linking cash to marijuana sales |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requirement that waiver be knowing and intelligent)
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (scope of admonitions required for valid waiver depends on case-specific factors)
- People v. Burgener, 46 Cal.4th 231 (2009) (California standard: record as a whole must show defendant understood risks of self-representation)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008) (transporting concealed cash does not alone prove intent to conceal the proceeds’ source under the federal statute at issue)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (interpretation of "proceeds" in federal money-laundering context and rule of lenity considerations)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinction between trial error and structural error; harmless-error analysis)