United States v. Davila-Nieves
670 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2012Background
- Dávila-Nieves was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) based on communications with a minor via interstate means and an undercover sting in Puerto Rico.
- A thirteen-year-old girl, Y.G., initially interacted with Dávila who misrepresented age and identity, engaging in sexually charged discussions.
- Law enforcement conducted a sting using an undercover officer posing as a minor, including emails, calls, texts, and a webcam encounter.
- Dávila was arrested when he met the undercover person at a store; a cooler with beer and Smirnoff Ice was found in his car.
- The government presented extensive recordings and transcripts but did not introduce the Puerto Rico statute into evidence; the district court judicially noticed the statute and instructed the jury accordingly.
- Dávila moved for acquittal and later sought a new trial, arguing error in reliance on judicial notice of state law and absence of entrapment instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices to prove the Puerto Rico element | Dávila | Dávila | Evidence sufficient; jury could find violation. |
| Whether taking judicial notice of state law violated due process or sixth amendment rights | Dávila | Dávila | No error; district court may take judicial notice of state law and instruct the jury. |
| Whether the failure to give an entrapment instruction requires a new trial | Dávila | Dávila | No entitlement to entrapment instruction; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for every fact)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (right to jury trial fundamental)
- United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2004) (district court may instruct jury on state law after judicial notice)
- Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc. v. Capital Terminal Co., 391 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 2004) (court may take judicial notice of state law without plea or proof)
- United States v. Clements, 588 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1979) (state law can be applied when element derived from state statute)
- Hanley v. United States, 416 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1969) (government may request judicial notice of state laws and instruct jury)
- Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury instructed on law as explained by court)
- United States v. Teleguz, 492 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2007) (entrampment doctrine; entrapment requires inducement and predisposition evidence)
- United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (definition and limits of entrapment; government overreach factors)
- United States v. Vasco, 564 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (modest burden to show inducement plus factors for entrapment)