United States v. Munguia, No. 10-50253 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and of possessing pseudoephedrine, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred as a matter of law in refusing a requested jury instruction specifying that "reasonable cause to believe" must be evaluated from her perspective, based on her knowledge and sophistication. The court held that the district court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction and that the error was not harmless.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Reversing a drug conspiracy and possession conviction, the panel held that the district court erred in refusing the defendant’s requested jury instruction that the requisite “reasonable cause to believe” that the drugs were being used to manufacture methamphetamine must be evaluated from the defendant’s perspective. Concurring, Judge Breyer wrote that defendants do not have carte blanche to introduce scienter evidence of marginal probative value that tends to “induc[e] decision on a purely emotional basis” or run afoul of Fed. R. Evid. 403 factors.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.