Beatrice Martinez Delgado and Gilbert Hernandez Rodriguez v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Beatrice Martinez Delgado and Gilbert Hernandez Rodriguez v. United States

327 F.2d 641, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6706

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1964

Docket18880_1

StatusPublished

Cited by64 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 641 (Beatrice Martinez Delgado and Gilbert Hernandez Rodriguez v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beatrice Martinez Delgado and Gilbert Hernandez Rodriguez v. United States, 327 F.2d 641, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6706 (9th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

Rodriguez and Delgado were each convicted under counts 8 and 9 of an indictment. Separate judgments were entered against each, and each appeals. The charge was violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, in receiving, concealing and facilitating transportation and concealment of marijuana, which they knew had been imported into the United States contrary to law. We are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain an essential element of the offense, possession, upon which alone the government relied. (See second paragraph of section 176a).

Stated most favorably to the government, the evidence shows the following: Rodriguez and Delgado were living together as “common law” spouses (which is merely inaccurate shorthand for being unmarried but living as if married), with their two children, at 910 Boyle Street, Los Angeles. With the consent of one of them, 1 the premises were searched. The bedroom which they occupied contained a double bed, a dresser, a TV set, and, at the foot of the bed, a night stand. There was also a closet, and in it the officers found a tan purse containing $150. Miss Delgado said it was hers. In the right top drawer of the dresser, they found another purse, containing $500. Miss Delgado said it was hers. She said she had saved part of the money “from her unemployment,” and her “husband” had given her part of it, and “she had worked some.” In a drawer of the night stand, the officers found seven marijuana cigarettes (count 9), and a small quantity of loose marijuana inside a folded newspaper (count 8). Miss Delgado declined *642 to answer a question as to whether the marijuana belonged to her. Also in the night stand were pocket books (paperbacks).

It is fundamental to our system of criminal law that guilt is individual. Here, that means that there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding, as to each defendant, that he or she had possession of the marijuana. Possession can be joint as well as several, “constructive” as well as “actual.” It must also be knowing. But here it is pure speculation as to whether Rodriguez alone, or Delgado alone, or both of them, had possession. No doubt one of them did; perhaps both did. But proof that does not give a rational basis for resolving the doubts necessarily present in the situation pictured to the jury in this case is not sufficient. (See Evans v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 121; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 451; Arellanes v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 603).

The judgments are reversed.

1

. It is claimed that the search was unlawful, and that no actual consent was given. We do not reach these questions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

Rodriguez and Delgado were each convicted under counts 8 and 9 of an indictment. Separate judgments were entered against each, and each appeals. The charge was violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, in receiving, concealing and facilitating transportation and concealment of marijuana, which they knew had been imported into the United States contrary to law. We are of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain an essential element of the offense, possession, upon which alone the government relied. (See second paragraph of section 176a).

Stated most favorably to the government, the evidence shows the following: Rodriguez and Delgado were living together as “common law” spouses (which is merely inaccurate shorthand for being unmarried but living as if married), with their two children, at 910 Boyle Street, Los Angeles. With the consent of one of them, 1 the premises were searched. The bedroom which they occupied contained a double bed, a dresser, a TV set, and, at the foot of the bed, a night stand. There was also a closet, and in it the officers found a tan purse containing $150. Miss Delgado said it was hers. In the right top drawer of the dresser, they found another purse, containing $500. Miss Delgado said it was hers. She said she had saved part of the money “from her unemployment,” and her “husband” had given her part of it, and “she had worked some.” In a drawer of the night stand, the officers found seven marijuana cigarettes (count 9), and a small quantity of loose marijuana inside a folded newspaper (count 8). Miss Delgado declined *642 to answer a question as to whether the marijuana belonged to her. Also in the night stand were pocket books (paperbacks).

It is fundamental to our system of criminal law that guilt is individual. Here, that means that there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding, as to each defendant, that he or she had possession of the marijuana. Possession can be joint as well as several, “constructive” as well as “actual.” It must also be knowing. But here it is pure speculation as to whether Rodriguez alone, or Delgado alone, or both of them, had possession. No doubt one of them did; perhaps both did. But proof that does not give a rational basis for resolving the doubts necessarily present in the situation pictured to the jury in this case is not sufficient. (See Evans v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 121; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 451; Arellanes v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 603).

The judgments are reversed.

1

. It is claimed that the search was unlawful, and that no actual consent was given. We do not reach these questions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 641, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beatrice-martinez-delgado-and-gilbert-hernandez-rodriguez-v-united-states-ca9-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack