Drug Law Blog

People v. Briones on Conspiracy to Commit Drug Offenses

An individual should not have been convicted both of conspiracy to possess heroin and methamphetamine for sale and of the actual counts of possession of heroin and meth for sale, the Second District Court of Appeal held today in People v. Briones, B195452.

The Attorney General in this case argued that the elements of the drug "conspiracy" -- namely, an "an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement" -- had been satisfied when the defendant received the money to buy the drugs, before the substantive possession ever occurred. The court notes, however, that "the conspiracy does not necessarily end on the commission of the first overt act. Instead, conspiracy is a continuing offense while the agreement continues." In this case, moreover, "the conspiracyand possession of the drugs for sale arise from the same set of operative facts."

First Circuit on Innocuous Explanations for Conspiracy

Here is today's opinion from the First Circuit in U.S. v. Ortiz (No. 05-1718), a case having to do with conspiracy charges filed against a guy who was driving around individuals involved in a drug deal and letting the dealers use his phone. In terms of drug law, I'm not sure that there's much to it other than a very deferential review of the district court's application of the evidentiary standard for conspiracy. The court is just looking for 1. the existence of a conspiracy, 2. defendant's knowledge of the conspiracy, and 3. defendant's voluntary participation. And in this case the district court appropriately concluded that all three factors were present.

Maybe the one relevant point is that Ortiz argued that there were innocent or innocuous explanations for his behavior. The First Circuit rejected that argument: "the possibility of innocuous explanations for his behavior does not foreclose the jury’s contrary inferences."