UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BELINDA ROSE HOVSEPIAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction for offenses related to the concealment, transportation, and sale of heroin.
Appellant was convicted of violating federal drug laws. She argued the evidence was insufficient, similar to a co-defendant's vacated conviction. Howe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concealment Of Heroin cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Hovsepian appeals from her conviction upon two counts charging violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 (concealment, transportation, and sale of heroin) and one count charging violation of 26 U.S. C. § 4705(a) (sale of heroin without an order form).
Appellant claims that the evidence against her was insufficient to sustain her conviction. She relies on our opinion in United States v. Camarillo (9th Cir. 1970) 431 F. 2d 616 vacating the conviction of her eodefendant Camarillo. She argues that the evidence against her is not materially different from that held insufficient in Camarillo’s case.
Here, unlike Camarillo, there was evidence that appellant was the person who transported and delivered the heroin that was the subject of the sale; she was not simply a bystander during the negotiation of the sale by others.
On September 18, 1969, the day before the sale took place, federal agents Lusar-di and Tryal waited with Paul and Marilyn Judd at the Judd residence for two hours anticipating the arrival of the “source,” who was described as a 19-year-old female addict named “Linda.” The source did not appear, and the negotiations were resumed the following day. At that time, Belinda Hovsepian was in the Judd’s living room with Camarillo and Sotelo. Paul Judd, Sotelo, and Lu-sardi went to the den, leaving Tryal, Ca-marillo, and Hovsepian in the living room. Tryal complained about the delay in delivery the prior day, and Hovsepian replied that she was a hairdresser who worked late and that “she was not able to get off at the proper time the previous evening, and that was why the delay occurred.” Tryal asked her if the heroin was in the house, and “she replied that it was not; however, it was a short distance away and Sotelo would make a phone call and it would be delivered within two to five minutes.”
That evidence, in the context of the other circumstances of the case, amply established the offenses of which appellant was convicted.
The judgment is affirmed.