United States v. Moe, No. 13-30224 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Defendant’s arguments on appeal rested on the so-called “buyer-seller rule,” under which a conviction for conspiracy cannot be based solely on the purchase of an unlawful substance but, rather, requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime other than the crime consisting the sale itself. Defendant argued that the evidence presented to the jury established only a buyer-seller transaction, not that she was engaged in a conspiracy with the seller in connection with subsequent distribution. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not err by not giving a jury instruction regarding the buyer-seller rule, as the instruction was not necessary under the circumstances of this case; and (3) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were not persuasive.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Rejecting the defendant’s contention that the evidence presented to the jury established only a buyer-seller transaction, the panel held that the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction for conspiracy, where the evidence indicated an ongoing relationship of mutual trust, there was testimony that the defendant was involved in the business of methamphetamine trafficking, there was evidence that the defendant’s supplier knew that the defendant was engaged in redistributing the methamphetamine that she was buying from him, and the supplier had an interest in fostering those downstream sales. The panel held that the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on how to determine a single conspiracy versus multiple conspiracies, where the defendant stood trial alone and the facts to do not support a multiple conspiracies defense. The panel held that the district court did not err in rejecting the defendant’s proposal to instruct the jury on the difference between a buyer-seller relationship and a conspiracy relationship, where the instructions as a whole accurately informed the jury that a conspiracy could not be UNITED STATES V. MOE 3 found based only on the sales by the supplier to the defendant. The panel held that the district court did not err when it curtailed as irrelevant cross-examination of the supplier aimed at showing that he associated with other individuals and was involved in other conspiracies, where the multiple conspiracy theory of defense did not apply. Concurring, Judge Hurwitz urged this court to follow the Seventh Circuit, which requires district courts to give a buyer-seller instruction whenever a jury could conceivably have determined that the buyer-seller relationship which existed did not involve an overarching conspiratorial agreement.
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.