United States v. Aldo Lopez Martinez, No. 17-2988 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to launder money; when a jury instruction sets forth all of the elements of the offense but incorrectly adds one more element, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is assessed against the elements of the charged crime and not against the additional element not essential to conviction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2988 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Aldo Lopez Martinez Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: May 17, 2018 Filed: June 1, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Aldo Lopez Martinez appeals his conviction for conspiring to launder money. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). His sole argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the funds he wired to unidentified recipients in Mexico included the proceeds of drug sales. To prove conspiracy to launder money, however, the government did not need to prove Lopez Martinez actually engaged in a financial transaction involving drug money. Rather, it needed to prove that Lopez Martinez voluntarily and knowingly entered into an agreement to launder money. United States v. Jarrett, 684 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997) (“It is elementary that a conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues . . . .”). To be sure, the district court instructed the jury on the element Lopez Martinez claims was not proven. But our review of whether the government proved its case does not depend on how the jury was instructed. Cf. Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, 715 (2016) (“[W]hen a jury instruction sets forth all the elements of the charged crime but incorrectly adds one more element, a sufficiency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the erroneously heightened command in the jury instruction.”). We accordingly affirm because, even if the evidence is insufficient to prove the point Lopez Martinez identifies, it does not draw into question his conviction of conspiracy to commit money laundering. ______________________________ -2-
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.
