United States v. Saul Morales
680 F. App'x 548
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Morales owned multiple properties where >4,000 marijuana plants were cultivated; growers paid rent in marijuana and used a separate stash/processing house.
- Police found marijuana on Morales’s person, large sums of cash, cultivation materials (digital scale), and a .22 rifle in his residence; coconspirators possessed firearms.
- Morales was convicted by a jury of manufacturing, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy, and maintaining drug-involved premises (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 856; 18 U.S.C. § 2).
- At trial the court excluded evidence about the state/local legality of small-scale medical marijuana cultivation; limited evidence about site identification and county fencing rules was admitted.
- Sentencing included enhancements for role in the offense (organizer/leader), maintaining drug-involved premises, and a two-level firearms enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence because the district court failed to make required factual findings on the firearm enhancement (operability and foreseeability) and overly relied on that enhancement in imposing sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aiding-and-abetting jury instruction | Instruction correctly required knowing, intentional assistance of each element | Instruction was erroneous/insufficient | Instruction was proper and consistent with Ninth Circuit law |
| Conspiracy instruction (knowledge of illegality) | Government need not prove defendant knew agreement was unlawful | Morales argued proof needed that he knew agreement had unlawful objective | Court held no proof of awareness of illegality required for conspiracy conviction |
| Exclusion of state/local legalization evidence | Evidence of state/local legality irrelevant to federal charges | Morales argued relevance to defense (necessity/mistake of law) | Exclusion proper; medical-necessity and mistake-of-law aren’t defenses to federal CSA charges |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to distribute | Government: ownership, control, rent-in-marijuana, stash house, scales, cash, arrests support intent | Morales: he was merely present/landlord | Evidence sufficient; Morales exercised dominion/control over premises and drugs |
| Brady/Giglio nondisclosure of officer’s expunged/past conviction & investigation | Morales: nondisclosed conviction/administrative probe were material/impeaching | Government: conviction expunged, >10 years old, inadmissible or of limited probative value; speculative harm | Court held nondisclosure not prejudicial; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Role and premises sentencing enhancements | Government: Morales organized growers, assigned plots, distributed materials, controlled leases; aware of and profited from grows | Morales: challenged scope/appropriateness | Court affirmed enhancements for organizer/leader and for maintaining drug-involved premises |
| Firearm sentencing enhancement | Government: guns found (Morales’s rifle and coconspirators’ firearms) justify §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement | Morales: rifle inoperable/clearly improbable connection; coconspirators’ guns not reasonably foreseeable | Court vacated sentence because district court failed to make/findings on rifle operability and foreseeability of co-defendants’ firearms; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goldtooth, 754 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2014) (aiding-and-abetting intent instruction authority)
- United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405 (9th Cir. 1997) (aiding-and-abetting instruction principles)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (conspiracy does not require proof defendant knew objective was unlawful)
- United States v. Lo, 447 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006) (conspiracy knowledge and state-law marijuana defenses)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (no medical-necessity defense under federal CSA)
- United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) (ownership/dominion/control standard for possession)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment/Brady principles)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2015) (leader/organizer enhancement standard)
- United States v. Smith, 905 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussion of inoperable/unloaded firearms and relevance)
- United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990) (co-conspirator firearms and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirement for district court to state reasons sufficient for appellate review)
- United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (remand for resentencing when sentencing enhancements not properly supported)
- United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (resentencing guidance after procedural sentencing error)