United States v. LopezUnited States v. Lopez
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Jolly, Duhé, Dennis
Following a jury trial, appellant, Antonio Lopez, was found guilty of importing mаrijuana, in violation of
FACTS
On the night of April 18, 1994, at approximately 10:45 p.m., аppellant drove a blue Ford sedan with Texas license plates to the Ysleta Port of Entry in order to cross from the Mexican side of the
Senior U.S. Custоms Service Inspector Angel Hernandez accompanied Lopez to the back of the vehicle while he opened the trunk. Hernandez testified that Lopez‘s hand trembled as he triеd to find the right key, but that he managed to open the trunk. When Hernandez looked into the trunk area, he observed what appeared to be a false compartment in the back of the seat. He asked U.S. Customs Service Inspector Luis Mata to take a look at the compartment, and then escorted appellant to the Customs headhouse. Hernandez testified that hе did not smell marijuana when the trunk was opened.
Inspector Mata drove the car from Lane 4 to the secondary area, where he prepared the vehicle for a caninе sniff by closing the window and running the air conditioner to send air from the
Lopez took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was not aware that there was marijuana hidden in the car, that he did not smell marijuana in the car, and that he would not have driven the car had he known there was marijuana in it. Aсcording to Lopez, he had gone to Guadalupe, Mexico with a man named Roger, and had spent the day drinking with Roger and two other men, Francisco and Edward. When arrested, he was driving a car that he believed belonged to Edward, who was too drunk to drive back to the United States.1 Lopez testified that Roger was driving Edward in another car and that the two were to pick up the car at Lopez‘s
The jury clearly rejected Lopez‘s version of events, finding him guilty on all charges -- one count of importation of marijuana in violation of
DISCUSSION
The narrow scope of our review for sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction is well established. We must affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 1789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Salazar, 66 F.3d 723, 728 (5th Cir. 1995). We thus consider the evidence, all reasоnable inferences drawn therefrom, and all credibility determinations in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469 (86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Salazar, 66 F.3d at 728; United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910-11 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Casel, 995 F.2d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir.), cert. denied U.S. , 114 S.Ct. 472, 126 L.Ed.2d 424 (1993). Our role does not extend to
A conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute requires proof that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed marijuana (3) with intent to distribute it. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir. 1990). In order to prove the crime of importation of marijuana, the Government must establish that the defendant knowingly played a role in bringing the marijuana into the country. Id. To establish either crime, the Government must adduce sufficient evidence of “guilty knowledge.” Id. Lopez argues that the Government failed to do so here.
The knowledge element for possession or importation of drugs can rarely be proven by direct evidence. See United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 332, 126 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993). Although knоwledge may sometimes be inferred solely from control of a vehicle containing drugs, when the contraband is hidden the Government must produce additional indicia that the defendant was aware of the presence of drugs. Id.
Lopez argues that the circumstances of this case, in particular his change of lanes prior to inspection, his nervousness when asked to open the trunk, and the odor of marijuana in the car, individually and collectively do not show a consciousness of guilt sufficient to support an inference of knowing possession. We cannot agreе. Although it appears that the bulk of evidence adduced at trial is at least as consistent with innocence as it is with guilt, we find that Inspector Mata‘s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana in the vehicle must tip the scales in favor of providing a basis for affirming the verdict.
Lopez mischaracterizes Mata‘s testimony as establishing that Mata could only smell marijuana once hе had entered the car and turned on the air conditioner. A review of the trial transcript reveals, however, that Mata testified that he smelled marijuana while he drove, with the driver‘s side window down, the approximately 45 feet from the primary to the secondary inspection area. We note that Mata‘s testimony is hardly unassailable, as he omitted recording this critical fact when he typed up his statement
CONCLUSION
Because the evidence was sufficient to convict Lopez for importation of marijuana and рossession of marijuana with intent to distribute, we AFFIRM his conviction and sentence.