United States v. Duane Sheridan
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18015
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sheridan drove a pickup truck stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas; two Mexican nationals (Machaen-Lopez and Cruz-Galindo) were found hidden in a large toolbox in the truck bed.
- Sheridan was tried by jury in the Southern District of Texas and convicted on two counts of transporting aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
- Sheridan’s defense included that he was unaware the aliens were in the truck; he requested a jury instruction limiting inference of knowledge from vehicle control.
- Sheridan sought an instruction based on United States v. Pennington (hiding of contraband defeats inference of knowledge from control alone).
- The district court declined the requested instruction and instead gave the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew (or recklessly disregarded) the alien’s unlawful presence and transported the alien with intent to further that unlawful presence.
- Sheridan appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing the Pennington-style instruction; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing a Pennington-style instruction limiting inference of knowledge from vehicle control | Sheridan: When aliens are hidden, control of the vehicle alone cannot support an inference of knowledge; jury should be instructed accordingly | Government: The Pattern Jury Instruction correctly states law on knowledge and intent for transporting aliens; no special limitation required | Court: No abuse of discretion; pattern instruction correctly stated law and covered knowledge element |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1994) (control of vehicle can support knowledge inference for contraband, but hiding may foreclose that inference)
- United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for refusal to give requested jury instruction is abuse of discretion)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instruction review)
- United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2005) (three-part test for when a requested instruction must be given)
- United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court does not err by giving a correct Pattern Jury Instruction)
- United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (same principle regarding pattern instructions)
Decision: Affirmed.