7 F.4th 414
6th Cir.2021Background
- Daniel Trevino founded and solely owned Hydroworld, a chain of Michigan storefronts that sold medical marijuana and related products; he was a registered MMMA patient but could not be a state-registered caregiver because of a prior felony.
- State and federal investigations seized marijuana, records, and cash; trial evidence admitted about 111 kg seized and sales logs accounting for an additional ~315 kg; Hydroworld operated from ~2010–Dec. 2017.
- A federal grand jury indicted Trevino on one conspiracy count (21 U.S.C. § 846) and nine substantive marijuana offenses (including § 841 and § 856); a jury convicted on all counts; district court sentenced him to 188 months.
- Trevino moved to quash the indictment relying on the annual appropriations rider (Rohrabacher‑Farr, "Section 538") that limits DOJ spending to prevent states from implementing medical‑marijuana laws, claiming it barred his prosecution.
- Trevino also asserted a mistake‑of‑law defense under Landen (Powell doctrine), challenged denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw shortly before trial, challenged admission of summary charts (Rule 1006/803(6)), and contested Guidelines rulings including denial of § 3E1.1 reduction.
- The district court denied a Section 538 evidentiary hearing (finding undisputed noncompliance with MMMA), excluded mistake‑of‑law evidence, denied counsel replacement, admitted sales summaries as business records, and rejected an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Trevino's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Section 538 on prosecution | Section 538 bars DOJ spending to prosecute individuals who "strictly complied" with state medical‑marijuana law; Trevino sought to quash indictment or get an evidentiary hearing | Section 538 (if valid) applies narrowly and does not protect those who were not compliant with state law; DOJ may prosecute where state law compliance is lacking | Court assumed, for argument, Section 538 could protect strictly compliant individuals but affirmed denial of hearing because undisputed facts showed Trevino could never qualify under MMMA (not a caregiver; patient status doesn't authorize sales) |
| Mistake‑of‑law defense (Landen/Powell doctrine) to conspiracy | Landen permits mistake‑of‑law to negate conspiracy mens rea for malum prohibitum offenses; Trevino sought to present belief‑of‑law evidence to negate intent | Modern law requires proof of intent to further unlawful objective; Landen's narrow four‑part test applies only where statute/regulation is ambiguous and defendants reasonably relied on counsel | Landen (even if not overruled) is narrow; here CSA and §846 unambiguous, MMMA doesn't create ambiguity, Section 538 postdates much conduct; exclusion of mistake‑of‑law evidence was proper |
| Motion to withdraw counsel (timeliness and right to counsel of choice) | Trevino claimed Sixth Amendment right to substitute counsel weeks before trial | Govt argued motion untimely, court adequately inquired, conflict not total breakdown, and public interest in expedition favored denial | District court did not abuse discretion: motion untimely, inquiry adequate, no total communication breakdown, and replacement would cause substantial delay |
| Admission of summary charts (Rule 1006 and business‑records foundation) | Charts inadmissible because underlying sales logs were hearsay and not shown trustworthy | Underlying logs satisfied Fed. R. Evid. 803(6): witnesses with knowledge (employees) testified to creation/regularity; chart preparer authenticated summaries | No abuse of discretion: underlying records admissible under business‑records exception and chart properly admitted; no shown lack of trustworthiness |
| Sentencing: acceptance of responsibility and overall reasonableness | Trevino argued for §3E1.1 reduction and a lower sentence given changing marijuana laws | Govt argued Trevino contested essential facts at trial, minimized role, showed defiance of federal law; Guidelines properly calculated and sentence reasonable | Denial of §3E1.1 affirmed (he contested essential elements and trial demeanor undermined remorse); within‑Guidelines 188‑month sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Landen v. United States, 299 F. 75 (6th Cir. 1924) (adopts narrow Powell‑type rule allowing mistake of law to negate conspiracy intent where statute ambiguous and reliance on counsel reasonable)
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (held strictly state‑law‑compliant medical‑marijuana defendants may be protected by appropriations rider and remanded for hearings)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal CSA preempts state law; Congress may regulate intrastate marijuana under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975) (conspiracy mens rea principles and limits on requiring awareness of illegality)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (distinguishes knowledge of facts from knowledge of law for mens rea)
- Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672 (1959) (addresses mens rea for conspiracy and has been read to limit Powell doctrine)
- People v. Powell, 63 N.Y. 88 (1875) (origin of the Powell doctrine permitting mistake‑of‑law defense to conspiracy in certain malum prohibitum contexts)