United States v. Salvador Hernandez, No. 14-50214 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for transportation of firearms into his state of residence. The panel held that, given the district court's broad jury instruction and the government’s theory of the case, it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury actually found that defendant had willfully committed the charged conduct. The broad jury instruction, combined with the evidence of the commission of later crimes and the government's argument to the jury, resulted in significant prejudice to defendant. The panel explained that the rule from the common law requires that a defendant's mental state and act coincide for a conviction to be valid. Neither Bryan v. United States nor 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 924 deviate from this rule.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the defendant’s conviction for transportation of firearms into his state of residence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), and remanded. The panel agreed with the government that the prohibition on the transportation of guns in § 922(a)(3) is not subject to the heightened willfulness requirement used in some tax and structuring laws. In this case, the government was required to show that the defendant knew his transportation of firearms into California was somehow unlawful, even if he did not know of the specific legal duty, or the particular law, that made it unlawful. The panel held that, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the government met its burden. But given the district court’s broad willfulness instruction, and the government’s introduction of, and arguments relying on, evidence that the defendant intended to later unlawfully sell the guns he purchased, the panel held that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant was convicted for the act of transporting guns with the intent to commit a later crime rather than the one with which he was charged. The panel could not conclude on this record that this constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ 3
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.