United States v. Solis, No. 18-1215 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
It is plain that the government cannot use the misprision statute to require someone to report a crime—an essential element of misprision—where doing so reasonably could lead to that individual's own prosecution. Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count 2); and misprision of a felony (Count 3).
The Eighth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support her convictions. However, the court held that the district court erred by entering a misprision judgment against her and the error violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In this case, the jury's misprision conviction criminally punished defendant for failing to tell authorities about a crime in which she was already involved. Finally, the court held that, taken together, the mere presence jury instructions adequately and accurately conveyed the substance of defendant's requested instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed Counts 1 and 2, reversed with instructions to vacate Count 3, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiracy and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; defendant's misprision of a felony conviction criminally punishes her for failing to tell authorities about a crime in which she was already involved and her conviction violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; defendant's misprision conviction is reversed with instruction to vacate the conviction; the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a mere presence instruction as the instructions given were adequate and yielded the unmistakable implication that something more than mere presence was required in order to convict. [ February 12, 2019
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.