United States v. Howard-Arias
679 F.2d 363 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated by imposing multiple punishments for the same conduct at a single trial when Congress has clearly expressed its intent to define separate and distinct criminal offenses.
Facts:
- Edmundo Howard-Arias was a crew member on the fishing trawler 'Don Frank'.
- On December 29, 1980, the 'Don Frank' became disabled sixty miles off the Virginia coast.
- Howard-Arias and the other crew members were rescued and taken aboard an Italian ship.
- The U.S. Coast Guard arrived, boarded the disabled 'Don Frank,' and discovered a large quantity of marijuana.
- Howard-Arias told authorities that the 'Don Frank' was of Colombian registry.
- The 'Don Frank' sank while being towed, but the Coast Guard salvaged approximately 240 bales of the marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- Edmundo Howard-Arias was indicted in federal district court on three counts, including possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the high seas and possession with intent to import marijuana into the U.S.
- The trial court dismissed a conspiracy count prior to trial.
- Following a jury trial, Howard-Arias was convicted on the two remaining counts.
- The district court sentenced him to consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment and imposed separate parole terms and fines for each count.
- Howard-Arias (appellant) appealed his convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging them on several grounds, including a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
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 convicting and sentencing a defendant under both 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) for possession of marijuana on the high seas with intent to distribute and 21 U.S.C. § 955a(d) for possession with intent to import it into the United States violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Sprouse, J.
No, convicting and sentencing the defendant for both offenses does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Congress, in enacting sections 955a(a) and 955a(d), created two separate and distinct offenses, negating any double jeopardy concerns. The court's analysis focuses primarily on legislative intent, which is the key to resolving double jeopardy questions involving multiple punishments in a single trial. The plain language and legislative history of the Marijuana on the High Seas Act demonstrate that Congress intended to create two crimes. Section 955a(a) criminalizes possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on a stateless vessel on the high seas, without requiring proof of intent to distribute within the United States. In contrast, section 955a(d) specifically requires proof that the defendant intended for the substance to be imported into the United States. The legislative history confirms that Congress deliberately omitted a 'U.S. nexus' requirement from § 955a(a) to ease prosecution of high-seas smugglers, who could otherwise evade conviction by claiming their cargo was destined for another country. Since Congress intended to establish two separate offenses, each punishing a distinct evil, the imposition of consecutive sentences is permissible.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that congressional intent is the paramount consideration in a double jeopardy analysis concerning multiple punishments for a single course of conduct. It clarifies that the traditional 'Blockburger' test is merely a rule of statutory construction to discern this intent, which can be overcome by clear evidence from legislative history. By upholding separate convictions for possession with a general intent to distribute on the high seas and possession with a specific intent to import into the U.S., the court significantly strengthened the government's ability to prosecute international drug traffickers. This ruling effectively eliminates the need for prosecutors to prove a U.S. destination to secure a conviction under § 955a(a), closing a loophole that smugglers had previously exploited.
