United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5355

Defendants Adin and Israel Del Toro-Barboza smuggled bulk cash and failed to declare currency over $10,000 at Otay Mesa port of entry.
A box in the back of their van contained a duffel bag with $500,087 in cash; the money was not declared.
Defendants claimed no knowledge of the money; they were charged with bulk cash smuggling under 31 U.S.C. § 5332 and reporting violations under § 5324.
The cash box was not personally marked; it was the only unmarked box in the van; a black sheet concealed containers during border crossing.
A four-day jury trial resulted in convictions on all counts; sentences were 41 months for Adin and 46 months for Israel, concurrent.
On appeal, Defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, double jeopardy, preservation/destruction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for 5332/5324	Del Toro-Barboza proved knew over $10,000 was transported.	No knowledge that the money was in the van; insufficient intent.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports knowledge and intent elements.
Jury instructions for Count Two (5324(c))	Instructions adequately stated elements of evading reporting.	Omitted explicit element of § 5324(c) and misdescribed § 5316 in charge.	No plain error; instructions substantially conveyed § 5324(c) elements.
Adin's theory of defense instruction	Defense theory adequately covered by other instructions.	Requested instruction necessary to reflect lack of knowledge by Adin.	Instructions reasonably covered defense theory; no reversible error.
Double Jeopardy / multiplicity	Counts 5324(c) and 5332 punish separate intents; permissible.	Counts may be multiplicitous; violate Blockburger.	Congress intended separate punishments; no Double Jeopardy violation.
Destruction/preservation of evidence	No due process violation; evidence not materially exculpatory.	Government failed to preserve potentially exculpatory box/money.	No due process violation; bad faith not shown; preservation order timing not fatal.

United States v. Tatoyan, 474 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step sufficiency framework and specific intent for bulk smuggling)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: any rational trier could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required)
United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejection of innocent explanations; reasonable inferences allowed)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (multiplicity test: separate elements mean separate offenses)
U.S. v. Begay, 673 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; reasonable inferences framework for circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (standard for destruction of evidence and bad-faith necessity)
United States v. Jose, 499 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2007) (Congressional purpose for bulk cash smuggling statute and deterrence rationale)
United States v. Matthews, 240 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2000) (closing argument implications and plain error consideration)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (cumulative punishment and legislative intent in multiple statutes)