United States v. Bonitz
76 F. App'x 808 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence, including a defendant's inconsistent exculpatory statements and an admission of suspicion, is sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew currency was counterfeit and possessed the requisite intent to defraud.
Facts:
- Gregory Lawrence Bonitz found a stash of $100 bills hidden inside a car he was repairing.
- After thinking about the money for a while, Bonitz came to the conclusion that the money might be counterfeit.
- Bonitz then took the suspect bills to a casino, where he gambled with them and exchanged some for change.
- A counterfeit bill with a torn corner was found in the console of Bonitz's car.
- When initially questioned by agents, Bonitz falsely claimed he had received the bills from another casino.
- Bonitz later signed a written statement admitting he found the money in the car and concluded it might be counterfeit before he passed it.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Lawrence Bonitz was charged in a federal trial court (U.S. District Court) with violating 18 U.S.C. § 472.
- A jury found Bonitz guilty on one count of the charge.
- Bonitz (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- On appeal, Bonitz argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient for a jury to find that he knew the notes were counterfeit and possessed an intent to defraud.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 472 where the defendant gave inconsistent statements about the source of counterfeit bills and signed a statement admitting he suspected they were counterfeit before passing them?
Opinions:
Majority - Unsigned Memorandum
Yes. There is sufficient evidence to support the conviction because a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's reasoning, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, relied on three key points. First, Bonitz's inconsistent exculpatory statements about the source of the bills serve as evidence of a 'consciousness of wrongdoing,' as established in United States v. McCall. Second, the discovery of a counterfeit bill torn at the corner supports the inference that Bonitz tested the money for security features. Most importantly, Bonitz's own signed statement, in which he admitted concluding the money 'might be counterfeit' before he proceeded to pass it, is sufficient on its own for a jury to reasonably find he possessed the required knowledge and intent.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the power of circumstantial evidence in proving the mens rea (guilty mind) elements of a crime, such as knowledge and intent. It reaffirms that a defendant's own admissions of mere suspicion, combined with evasive or untruthful statements to law enforcement, can be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. The decision highlights the highly deferential standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims on appeal, making it difficult for defendants to overturn a jury verdict once rendered.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bonitz