United States v. Pennington - 20 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1994)

Rule:

To establish possession of marihuana with intent to distribute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1) knowing 2) possession of marijuana 3) with intent to distribute it. To establish a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C.S. § 846, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1) an agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics laws, 2) that each alleged conspirator knew of the conspiracy and intended to join it, and 3) that each alleged conspirator did participate voluntarily in the conspiracy. 

Facts:

In September 1992, appellants Jon Wayne Pennington and John Mitchell Margiotta, inexperienced truckers who lived in Miami, had just completed a delivery that left them in Texas. Appellant contacted a broker to determine whether there were any loads in the West Texas area bound for Florida. The broker informed him that a load of unglazed Mexican tile in Rio Grande City needed to be shipped to Miami. Appellant truckers were convicted of possession with intent to distribute marihuana and one appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, after police found crates containing marihuana in the trailer they were hauling. Appellants challenged their convictions on sufficiency grounds because they did not know they possessed drugs, did not observe the loading process, and the trailer was unlocked and a jury instruction did not substantially cover constructive possession.

Issue:

Were the appellant truckers’ conviction proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that additional evidence of knowledge, more than just control of the trailer, was required because the drugs were hidden in the trailer. However, the court affirmed one appellant's conviction after finding that there was sufficient evidence that appellants' circuitous route supported the jury's conclusion that they picked up a load of drugs. Thus, the court reversed and remanded the conspiring appellant's conviction because the instruction did not substantially cover the issue of constructive possession.