United States v. Kenia Munguia
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24294
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Munguia was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to possess and possession of pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2).
- At issue was whether ‘reasonable cause to believe’ must be evaluated from Munguia’s perspective or from that of a hypothetical reasonable person.
- The district court rejected Munguia’s request for a subjective, defendant-focused instruction and gave a government-proposed instruction referring to a ‘reasonable person.’
- Evidence showed Munguia purchased a large amount of pseudoephedrine and accompanied co-conspirators to pharmacies; the government’s key witness testified Munguia knew it would be used for methamphetamine.
- Munguia argued she did not know the pills could be used to manufacture meth and that her fear of Alas limited her inquiry; Alas testified that she knew or should have known the pills’ purpose.
- The trial record included MethCheck purchase histories and various testimonial conflicts regarding Munguia’s knowledge and role in the scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction on ‘reasonable cause to believe’ was proper | Munguia: instruction must reflect her lens, not a hypothetical person. | Government: instruction properly used a reasonable-person standard. | Instruction error; must be defendant-focused. |
| Whether the error was harmless | If jurors considered Munguia’s knowledge, acquittal was possible; error not harmless. | Reasonable to convict based on a hypothetical standard. | Not harmless; reversal required. |
| Whether the standard should be evaluated through Munguia’s perspective due to § 841(c)(2) mens rea | Court should apply subjective lens of the defendant. | Standard can be informed by objective considerations as to a reasonable person. | Decision requires defendant-focused assessment per Kaur/Johal. |
| Impact of potential battered-woman-syndrome testimony on the standard | Expert testimony could illuminate defendant’s perspective on knowledge. | Gatekeeping/evidentiary issues unresolved by this appeal; not necessary to resolve here. | Not resolved; issue deemed unnecessary to decide on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kaur, 382 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizes defendant-focused ‘reasonable cause to believe’ instruction is proper)
- United States v. Johal, 428 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholds defendant-focused standard for § 841(c)(2))
- United States v. Saffo, 227 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2000) (describes subjective lens for knowledge under § 841(c)(2))
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (harmless-error standard for instructional errors)
- Thongsy, 577 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) (applies harmless-error framework to jury instruction error)