United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5914, 2008 WL 747124, 519 F.3d 1236 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's evidence of voluntary intoxication and resulting amnesia is not legally relevant to defend against a general intent crime, such as being illegally "found in" the United States, because such evidence merely invites speculation about how the defendant entered the country and does not make it more or less probable that the entry was involuntary. Excluding such speculative evidence does not violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.
Facts:
- Alfredo Hernandez-Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, had been deported from the United States on two prior occasions.
- While at a bar in Palomas, Mexico, Hernandez-Hernandez consumed more than a fifth of a quart of liquor and some marijuana.
- As a result of this consumption, he experienced a complete "blackout" and had no memory of subsequent events.
- The next thing Hernandez-Hernandez remembered was being inside the United States and being confronted by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.
- He admitted to the agent that he was a Mexican national and possessed no documentation permitting him to be in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Alfredo Hernandez-Hernandez in the U.S. District Court for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by being "found in" the United States after a prior deportation.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication.
- The district court granted the government's motion, ruling the evidence inadmissible.
- Hernandez-Hernandez then entered a conditional plea of guilty, which reserved his right to challenge the court's evidentiary ruling on appeal.
- Hernandez-Hernandez (as appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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's exclusion of evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication and resulting amnesia violate the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense to the charge of being illegally "found in" the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch, Circuit Judge
No. A trial court's exclusion of evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication and amnesia does not violate the constitutional right to present a defense when that evidence is not relevant to an element of the crime. The crime of being "found in" the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is a general intent crime, requiring only that the defendant intended the physical act of entering the country. While an alien's presence in the U.S. creates a common-sense inference of intentional entry, this can be rebutted with evidence of involuntary entry, such as being drugged and carried across the border. However, Hernandez-Hernandez's proffered evidence of amnesia does not make it more or less probable that his entry was involuntary. His lack of memory leaves equally open the possibility that he entered voluntarily or was brought across the border against his will. Evidence that merely invites the jury to speculate on possibilities, without altering the probability of a material fact, is not relevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The constitutional right to present a defense is not absolute and does not compel the admission of irrelevant evidence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the very low mens rea (intent) standard for the illegal reentry statute, confirming it only requires the intent to perform the physical act of crossing the border. It establishes that a defendant cannot create a viable defense of involuntary entry by simply pointing to a lack of memory, even if medically supported by intoxication-induced amnesia. The ruling reinforces the trial court's role as a gatekeeper in excluding evidence that is purely speculative. For future defendants in the Tenth Circuit, this case makes it clear that a defense of involuntary entry must be supported by affirmative evidence suggesting coercion or force, not merely an absence of memory about the entry itself.
