United States v. Maldonado
23 F.3d 4 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Constructive possession of a controlled substance is established by showing that a person knowingly had both the power and the intention to exercise dominion and control over the substance. This power can be established by the substance's placement in a location over which the defendant has control, even if that control is joint and the defendant never physically touches the substance.
Facts:
- Ruben de los Santos, a seaman cooperating with law enforcement, transported eight kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to Ponce, Puerto Rico.
- Santos was instructed by a drug dealer to deliver the cocaine to a 'Mr. Palestino' at the Hotel Melia in Ponce.
- At the hotel, Rafael Angel Zavala Maldonado appeared from the room registered to Palestino and led Santos to room 302.
- Inside the room, Zavala acknowledged he was Palestino's friend and made phone calls to arrange for Palestino's arrival.
- Zavala suggested moving the cocaine to another room where his friends were, but Santos refused.
- At Santos' suggestion, the two men decided to leave the room for a soda.
- Before leaving, Santos placed the bag containing the cocaine into a closet inside room 302, with Zavala's knowledge and acquiescence.
- Zavala and Santos then exited the room together, leaving the drugs behind.
Procedural Posture:
- Rafael Angel Zavala Maldonado was charged in federal district court with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, among other counts.
- A jury found Zavala guilty of the possession count but acquitted him of importation and using a telephone to facilitate a drug crime.
- Zavala appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove possession.
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 defendant constructively possess narcotics under 21 U.S.C. § 841 when, without ever physically touching them, he knowingly allows them to be left in a hotel room over which he has control to facilitate their transfer to an accomplice?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge
Yes. A defendant constructively possesses narcotics under these circumstances. The concept of possession in federal drug statutes is broad and includes constructive possession, which requires proof of the defendant's power and intention to exercise control over the object. Although Zavala may not have possessed the drugs while Santos was physically holding the bag in the room, the situation changed once both men left the room, leaving the drugs behind. At that point, a jury could reasonably find Zavala had both the power to control the drugs—as they were located in a hotel room he effectively occupied—and the intention to exercise that power, demonstrated by his active facilitation of the drug transaction for his accomplice, Palestino. This constitutes joint constructive possession, which is sufficient for a conviction under the statute.
Dissenting - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The majority's interpretation expands the definition of 'constructive possession' to a dangerous and unsupported degree. The 'power' element of constructive possession requires not just physical proximity or access, but the right or authority to exercise dominion and control. Zavala had no such right; the drugs had not been paid for, he was not the intended recipient, and the courier (Santos) had refused his request to move them. Furthermore, the requisite 'intent' is the intent to exercise one's own dominion, not merely to facilitate a transfer to someone else. By blurring the lines between possession and conspiracy, this ruling allows the government to secure a possession conviction on facts that properly support only a conspiracy charge, which was not brought against the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of constructive possession, particularly in situations involving intermediaries and shared control. The court established that a defendant's control over the location where drugs are stored can be sufficient to prove the 'power' element of constructive possession, even without physical contact or exclusive access. This ruling lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors in cases where a defendant acts as a facilitator, making it easier to secure a possession conviction against individuals who are one step removed from the physical contraband. The dissent's strong objection highlights the doctrinal tension between the distinct crimes of possession and conspiracy, arguing that this decision erodes that meaningful distinction.
