United States v. Cesar Caballero
714 F. App'x 623
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cesar Caballero was convicted by a jury of failure to surrender under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2) for not self-surrendering on September 8, 2015 after re-sentencing for mail obstruction.
- Caballero had been placed on release at his original arraignment on the mail obstruction charges; the district court concluded that this constituted release under the Bail Reform Act (BRA).
- Before trial Caballero asked the court to add an element to the model jury instruction requiring proof that the defendant was “released from custody under the Bail Reform Act.” The court declined, instructing with Model Instruction 8.195 as written (four elements: sentence, surrender order, knowledge, intentional failure to surrender).
- The jury convicted; Caballero appealed, arguing the BRA-release element should have been instructed as part of the offense.
- The panel affirmed, holding (1) omitting the BRA-release element was not misleading because the district court properly found release as a matter of law, and (2) any error in omitting the element was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Caballero's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury must be instructed that BRA release is an element of § 3146(a)(2) failure to surrender | The jury should be instructed that an element of § 3146(a)(2) is that the defendant was released under the Bail Reform Act | The district court properly found release under the BRA as a matter of law; Model Instruction 8.195 (four elements) suffices | Court: Not required here—district court correctly found BRA release as a matter of law and omission was not misleading |
| If omission was error, whether it was harmless | Omission prejudiced Caballero because BRA-release is a statutory element common to § 3146(a) | Record indisputably shows BRA release and other elements were proven; any omission would not affect verdict | Court: Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Whether government must always prove BRA-release to juries in § 3146 cases (concurrence concern) | (Raised by concurrence) BRA-release must be proved; there are scenarios (fugitive, never taken into custody) where BRA-release might not apply | Majority: BRA is sole statutory authority for release and here release was established as a matter of law | Concurrence: Agrees result is harmless here but would require proof/instruction of BRA-release in general to avoid relieving government burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Hofus, 598 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010) (instructions judged as a whole)
- United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015) (prejudice requirement for imperfect instructions)
- United States v. Jimenez-Borja, 378 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (omission of an element subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless error standard for omitted elements)
- United States v. Burns, 667 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1982) (Bail Reform Act as the statutory authority for federal release)
- United States v. McGill, 604 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1979) (release under BRA may be decided as a matter of law)
- Weaver v. United States, 37 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1994) (government must prove BRA release in § 3146(a)(1) failure-to-appear prosecutions)
- United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (release pending trial governed by the Bail Reform Act)
- Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005) (instruction that fairly and adequately covers issues and states law)