United States v. Vazquez-Hernandez, No. 15-10009 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for attempted illegal reentry and noted that the district court's instruction at trial failed to properly inform the jury of the essential elements of the offense. Petitioner frequently earned money washing car windows at the Mariposa port of entry into the United States. Petitioner was arrested by border patrol agents one day when he was washing windows. The court concluded that the lack of instruction to the jury that petitioner had to have a conscious desire to reenter the United States free from official restraint to be found guilty of the crime of attempted illegal reentry was plain error. In this case, if properly instructed on the official restraint doctrine, no rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner was free from official restraint in the pre-inspection area, or that he intended to be simply by entering that area. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence in the record to support petitioner's guilt on the theory that he intended to go beyond the pre-inspection area so as to be free to go at large and at will within the United States. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a judgment of acquittal
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel vacated a conviction for attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal. The panel held that the district court committed plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights by failing to instruct the jury that in order to be found guilty of attempted illegal reentry the defendant must have had the specific intent to reenter the United States free from official restraint. The panel held that even if the jury applied the correct legal standard, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of attempted illegal reentry beyond a reasonable doubt. The panel wrote that if properly instructed on the official restraint doctrine, no rational jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was free from official restraint in the pre-inspection area, or that he intended to be simply by entering that area. The panel wrote that there is likewise insufficient evidence in the record to support the defendant’s guilt on the theory that he intended to go beyond the pre-inspection area so as to be free to go at large and at will within the United States.
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.