United States v. Hunte

Facts

D decided to accompany her boyfriend, co-defendant, Richards, on a trip to California with an acquaintance, Gonzalez. Richards was a known drug dealer. The purpose of the trip was to purchase and bring back a load of narcotics. Richards supplied a minivan for the trip, and Gonzalez was to be the driver. Richards agreed to pay Gonzalez seven pounds of marijuana for help driving the van. D went along for the ride. All three drove to get a fourth for the group. D stayed in a hotel room while Richards and Gonzalez went to meet Warwick. Richards asked Warwick to help him drive to Phoenix. Warwick agreed, believing Richards would pay his friend the $3,000 Richards owed, and the friend would stop taking Warwick's disability checks for room and board. They picked up Hunte at the motel and left for Arizona. Richards changed the plan and said they were headed to Virginia. Warwick eventually figured out they were going to pick up drugs, but by this time they were in Texas. In Tucson, Richards made his drug connection, and a man took the van. It was returned loaded with marijuana. D remained in the living room watching television. The three men weighed the bundles of marijuana. Richards cut one open to make sure it was all marijuana. Gonzalez testified at trial that Richards took precautions to keep D out of the business aspects of the deal. Hunte rolled a joint and closed the window blinds while the group smoked some of the marijuana. Richards and Hunte drove to Tulsa in a Maxima, followed by Gonzalez and Warwick in the van. D registered for a motel room for herself and Richards, while Gonzalez and Warwick registered for another room. Richards paid all expenses, including the motels, throughout the trip. In Illinois, state police pulled the minivan and Warwick, and Gonzalez admitted they were following another car. After the minivan had been pulled over, D and Richards had switched positions so that Hunte was driving. They denied that they were traveling with the minivan and told police they had been traveling around the Midwest looking for farm equipment. Police matched fingerprints on the marijuana to Richards, but not to D. D was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Gonzalez and Warwick agreed to testify against D at trial in exchange for one-third off their sentences. D claimed she never possessed the marijuana because Richards was in charge and only he, Gonzalez and Warwick ever handled the bundles. D claimed she was not a part of the conspiracy because she did not stand to gain from it. The jury asked for a clarification of the legal definition of constructive possession. The judge provided no additional help. The jury found D guilty on both counts. The judge denied sentence reductions and D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.