United States v. Quang Le Phan
93 F. App'x 108 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's active participation as a driver in the transportation and delivery of contraband, with knowledge of its illegal nature, is sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find constructive joint possession and the requisite intent to deceive.
Facts:
- Quang Le Phan was aware that his passenger possessed counterfeit checks and that 'something illegal was going on.'
- Phan drove his co-defendants to a designated meeting location to deliver the counterfeit checks to individuals who were actually undercover government agents.
- At the location, Phan observed his co-defendant make an initial delivery of two counterfeit checks.
- After the initial delivery, Phan drove away from the immediate scene but remained nearby while the first checks were being inspected.
- Phan then drove back to the meeting spot and personally handed over the remaining eighteen counterfeit checks.
- Following the second delivery, Phan moved the vehicle to another location in the parking lot to await the completion of the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Quang Le Phan was charged with knowing possession of counterfeit securities in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Following a trial, a jury found Phan guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Phan to 21 months imprisonment and two years of supervised release, denying his request for a 'minimal role' sentencing adjustment.
- Phan, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing insufficiency of evidence and sentencing errors.
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 the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for knowing possession of counterfeit securities where the defendant acted as the driver for co-defendants, knew of the illegal activity, and actively participated in the delivery of the securities to undercover agents?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. A rational trier of fact could find Phan guilty based on either a direct liability or an aiding and abetting theory. For direct liability, Phan's actions established constructive joint possession of the checks; by knowingly driving to the location, observing the deal, and personally handing over the remaining securities, he exercised joint 'dominion and control' over them. The requisite 'intent to deceive' can be inferred from these actions, as a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their knowing acts. Alternatively, under an aiding and abetting theory, the evidence clearly showed that Phan knowingly and intentionally aided his companions in their possession and attempted sale of the counterfeit securities.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the breadth of constructive possession doctrine, particularly in scenarios involving vehicles where multiple parties are present. It demonstrates that a defendant need not be the primary actor or have exclusive control over contraband to be found guilty of possession. The court's reliance on the defendant's series of actions to infer both possession and intent highlights the power of circumstantial evidence in securing convictions. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to charge accomplices, such as drivers, who play a crucial but secondary role in a criminal enterprise.
