United States v. Son Anh Chu
93 Daily Journal DAR 3381, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1880, 988 F.2d 981 (1993)
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction that allows a finding of knowing possession based solely on the quantity of a controlled substance is erroneous because it improperly directs the jury's attention to one fact to the exclusion of all other evidence, thereby intruding on the jury's deliberative process.
Facts:
- Son Anh Chu arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Thailand, en route to New York City, after spending three months primarily in Vietnam.
- Customs agents detained Chu and discovered 2,775 grams of heroin, with an approximate street value of $11 million, in his suitcase.
- The heroin was concealed within lacquerware picture frames, which were packed inside a sealed box in Chu's luggage.
- Chu conceded that the heroin was in his suitcase but contended that he did not know it was there.
- Chu testified that a family friend in Vietnam had given him the sealed box of picture frames, and a resident of Toronto would contact him in New York City to arrange its pickup.
- Chu presented evidence supporting his claim of traveling to Vietnam for business and noted that his fingerprints were not found on the picture frames.
- The government presented evidence suggesting Chu acted suspiciously upon arrival, initially lied about his travel, had been in Thailand (a known source country for narcotics), and had access to large amounts of cash despite meager financial resources.
- The government's expert testified that the heroin was likely produced outside of Vietnam, making it improbable that it would be smuggled into Vietnam only to be smuggled out again.
Procedural Posture:
- The government proposed a jury instruction stating that possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance alone may be sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession.
- Son Anh Chu unsuccessfully objected to this proposed jury instruction in the district court.
- The district court included the challenged instruction in its charge to the jury.
- Chu was convicted by a jury for possession of heroin with intent to distribute and importation of heroin, and subsequently sentenced to 121 months imprisonment.
- Chu appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 jury instruction, stating that "possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance alone may be sufficient to support a finding that a defendant knowingly possessed that controlled substance," constitute an erroneous misstatement of an element of the crime, warranting reversal?
Opinions:
Majority - David R. Thompson
Yes, the jury instruction was erroneous because it improperly told the jury that possession of a substantial quantity of a controlled substance alone could be sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession. The Ninth Circuit held that such an instruction suffers from the same flaws as the one in United States v. Rubio-Villareal, where the court incorporated language previously used to describe evidence sufficient for appellate review into an instruction intended to guide jury deliberations. This instruction improperly focused the jury on one fact, rather than all the facts, effectively conveying that this single piece of evidence could be determinative to the exclusion of all else, thereby improperly intruding on the jury's deliberative process. The court distinguished this instruction from a Jewell (deliberate ignorance) instruction, which allows for conviction if deliberate ignorance is proven but does not permit an inference of knowledge from a single fact. The error was not harmless because, while there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have convicted Chu, it was not so overwhelmingly clear that the court could say with confidence there was no reasonable possibility the erroneous instruction materially affected the verdict. Consequently, Chu is entitled to a new trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between the sufficiency of evidence needed to sustain a conviction on appeal and the proper instructions given to a jury to guide its initial deliberations. It cautions against jury instructions that highlight one piece of evidence as potentially determinative of an element of a crime, as this can improperly influence the jury's assessment of all the evidence and infringe upon its exclusive role as fact-finder. The ruling underscores the importance of clear and balanced jury instructions, particularly for the element of 'knowing possession,' to ensure a fair trial where the jury considers the totality of circumstances.
