UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARK EDWIN FLOM, 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 insufficient to sustain the conviction for importing and facilitating the importation of heroin.
Flom and Atkinson traveled to Mexico, where Atkinson purchased heroin and secreted it in his body. Upon reentering the United States, they were detain…
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 Knowledge Of Illegal Importation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Mark E. Flom appeals his conviction by a judge without a jury of importing and knowingly facilitating the importation into and transportation within the United States of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. We reverse. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.
The Government proved that Flom and his longtime friend Daniel Atkinson went to Mexico together. While separated from Flom, Atkinson purchased heroin and secreted it in his body. The men reentered the United States on foot, and were detained because they were nervous and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Flom had recent needle marks on his arms, but a strip search was negative. A strip and body search of Atkinson revealed the heroin.
Viewed most favorably to the Government, the evidence does not support a finding that Flom had possession, actual or constructive, of the heroin, or that he knew it was illegally imported. Atkinson had exclusive control of the heroin. The Government’s evidence may have given rise to the suspicion, but it did not prove that Flom was implicated with Atkinson in the illegal importation of heroin. Murray v. United States, 403 F. 2d 694, 695-696 (9th Cir. 1968).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Gardner, 475 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Abe Jones, 518 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Nava-Flores, 524 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Murray v. United States, 403 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1968)