United States v. Fernando Carrillo
694 F. App'x 573
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Fernando Gabriel Carrillo was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 for damaging U.S. government property (a door and a fire-alarm annunciator panel).
- Carrillo moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing insufficient evidence; the district court denied the motion; conviction followed.
- Carrillo also moved for a new trial under Rule 33, asserting government misconduct in argument about the required mental state (willfulness); the district court denied that motion.
- The jury had been instructed that willfulness required acting "intentionally and purposely and with the intent to do something the law forbids."
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit held the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but found the prosecutor’s argument misstated willfulness (treating non-accident as sufficient) and that the misstatement was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction | Government: evidence showed Carrillo intentionally broke government property; conviction supported | Carrillo: evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find elements proven (Rule 29 denial proper) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in argument about willfulness; effect on fairness/new trial | Government: prosecutor’s explanation clarified instruction; no prejudice | Carrillo: prosecutor misled jury by equating non-accident with willfulness, undermining required knowledge/intent; prejudicial | Reversed — prosecutor’s repeated, uncorrected misstatements improperly lowered willfulness standard and were not harmless; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Derington, 229 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2000) (willfulness instruction formulation)
- United States v. Berry, 683 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial misstatement can warrant reversal if not harmless)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (prejudice from improper argument about intent)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (difficulty and nuance of the "willfulness" concept)
- United States v. Del Toro-Barboza, 673 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmlessness and fundamental fairness analysis)