United States v. Solis

915 F.3d 1172 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2019-02-13

criminal; jury convictions for conspiracy (ยง 846) and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; on appeal defendant challenges sufficiency of the evidence of knowing (constructive) possession and the refusal of a "mere presence" instruction; drug convictions affirmed (separate misprision conviction reversed on Fifth Amendment grounds) (result: claimant-won)

Facts

  1. 1 Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) satisfied proved
    After Pedraza, Solis, and the children arrived in Dallas, DEA agents intercepted a phone conversation in which Solis asked Pedraza if he had "fix[ed] everything there."
  2. 1 Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) satisfied proved
    He found another $1,796 in rubber-banded cash in Solis's purse.
  3. 1 Mens rea: "knowingly or intentionally" (including knowledge that the substance is a controlled substance) satisfied proved
    Here, unlike in Ramos, the evidence supported a finding that Solis: knew that Pedraza had purchased methamphetamine in Dallas; allowed Pedraza to store the drugs in her vehicle; knew that the drugs were stashed in her children's car seats; and had access to those car seats.
  4. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    Using one of Solis's vehicles, Pedraza drove Solis and two of her children to Dallas, Texas, on July 17, 2015, where he planned on purchasing ten kilograms of methamphetamine.
  5. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    Solis consented to a search of the vehicle.
  6. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    Using the cordless drill and the Phillips bit, he disassembled the car seats and found $19,000 in rubber-banded cash and 2.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.
  7. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    The government may prove knowing possession by showing constructive possession-that is, that Solis had both knowledge of and control over the contraband.
  8. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    Mere presence or physical proximity alone cannot support such a finding. There must be "some nexus between a defendant and the contraband."
  9. 3 Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) satisfied proved
    Accordingly, a reasonable jury could find that Solis had knowledge of and control over the methamphetamine.