State v. Pedroza-Perez
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with importation of marijuana, transportation of marijuana for sale, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Defendant notified the court that he intended to raise a duress defense by testifying that armed smugglers had forced him to carry the drugs. The trial court precluded Defendant from raising the duress defense or describing any related anticipated testimony in his opening statement on the grounds that Defendant might change his mind about testifying. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of transportation of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, holding that the trial court erred in so limiting Defendant’s opening statement. Remanded to allow the court of appeals to consider whether the error was harmless.
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.