United States v. Gonzales-Benitez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
537 F.2d 1051 (1976)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant's predisposition to commit a crime defeats an entrapment defense, even where the government supplied the contraband used in the offense. The government's conduct in supplying contraband, without more, is not so outrageous as to violate due process.

Facts:

Ana Maria Gutierrez, a paid Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) informer, initiated phone conversations with Aida Gonzales-Benitez in Culiacan, Mexico.
Gonzales-Benitez indicated she could obtain heroin and asked Gutierrez to find reliable buyers.
Gutierrez and her daughter later met with Gonzales-Benitez and Ambrosio Hernandez-Coronel in Mexico, where they discussed the delivery and transportation of heroin.
Subsequently, Gutierrez introduced Gonzales-Benitez to Hector Berrellez, an undercover DEA agent posing as a buyer, and a sale was arranged for delivery in the United States.
In a hotel in Nogales, Mexico, Gonzales-Benitez and Hernandez-Coronel produced 13 ounces of heroin for Gutierrez.
Hernandez-Coronel placed the heroin in a grocery bag, which he held on his lap while Gutierrez drove him and her daughter across the border into Arizona; Gonzales-Benitez crossed separately on foot.
The group reunited in Arizona and drove to a motel to meet Berrellez.
After Berrellez took possession of the heroin from the appellants, a signal was given and they were arrested.

Procedural Posture:

Aida Gonzales-Benitez and Ambrosio Hernandez-Coronel were charged in U.S. District Court with importing and distributing heroin.
At trial, the defendants raised an entrapment defense and requested a specific jury instruction that they must be found entrapped if the government supplied the heroin.
The trial court refused to give the requested instruction but did provide a detailed instruction on predisposition.
A jury found Gonzales-Benitez and Hernandez-Coronel guilty on all counts.
The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the trial court erred in its jury instructions and other rulings.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court err by refusing to give a jury instruction that a defendant must be found entrapped as a matter of law if a government agent supplied the contraband, regardless of the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime?

Opinions:

Majority - Kennedy, J.

No. A defendant is not entitled to an instruction for acquittal as a matter of law based on the government supplying contraband if the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Hampton, the court affirmed that the key inquiry in an entrapment defense is the defendant's predisposition. If a defendant is found to be predisposed, the defense fails. The court reasoned that evidence of the government supplying contraband is highly relevant to the question of predisposition, but it does not automatically constitute entrapment. Furthermore, while Hampton left open the possibility of a due process violation for outrageous government conduct, merely supplying the contraband, as alleged by the appellants, does not rise to that level. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction was not error, and its detailed instruction on predisposition was sufficient.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the subjective theory of entrapment, which focuses on the defendant's state of mind rather than the objective nature of the government's conduct. By following the precedent set in United States v. Hampton, the court solidifies the principle that a defendant's predisposition is the dispositive factor in an entrapment defense. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to claim entrapment when they were already willing to engage in criminal activity, even if the government's involvement was substantial. The only remaining avenue for a predisposed defendant is the high bar of proving that the government's conduct was so 'outrageous' that it violated due process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Gonzales-Benitez (1976)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature