UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

SAUL S. HERRERA-BRITTO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1984-08-20

No. 83-5796

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RO-NEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

739 F.2d 551 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1984) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was valid, affirming the trial court's rulings.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant, captain of the stateless vessel MISS SHIRLEY, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana found on board by the U.S…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Jurisdiction Over Stateless Vessels Imminent Harm Hearsay Statements State Of Mind

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Over Stateless Vessels cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana on a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955a(a) (Supp. V 1981). Defendant was captain of the stateless vessel MISS SHIRLEY, whose hold contained approximately 426 bales of marijuana discovered upon boarding by the U.S. Coast Guard. Defendant raises several issues on appeal. All are meritless.

The court correctly refused to give defendant’s duress instruction. No substantive evidence in the record supported this instruction. Evidence of alleged duress in Colombia was admitted for the limited purpose to prove defendant’s state of mind and not for the truth of the matters contained in those hearsay statements. Even accepting the truth of these statements, defendant showed no imminent harm sufficient to justify the instruction. See U.S. v. Lee, 694 F. 2d 649, 654 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086, 103 S.Ct. 1779, 76 L.Ed.2d 350 (1983).

The Coast Guard had jurisdiction to seize and search the MISS SHIRLEY. The vessel was stateless and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955b(d) (Supp. V 1981). See U.S. v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F. 2d 1373, 1383 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1114, 103 S.Ct. 748, 74 L.Ed.2d 967 (1983).

Admission of defendant’s statement to Coast Guard boarding officers that marijuana was on board and that he was responsible for it did not violate Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Defendant volunteered these statements to the officers. The statements were not made in response to any question or interrogation. Their admission does not violate Miranda. See U.S. v. Hall, 716 F. 2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1983), petition for cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3534, 81 L.Ed.2d — (1984).

The court did not err in admitting a certified document signed by the general commander of the Naval Force of Honduras and attested to by the Minister of National Defense and Safety of Honduras stating that a search of vessel registration records at the Honduras Naval Command Headquarters revealed no registration for the vessel MISS SHIRLEY. The document met the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 902(3) and 803(10), see U.S. v. Martinez, 700 F. 2d 1358, 1364-65 (11th Cir.1983), and had sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the confrontation clause.

The prosecutor’s closing argument did not prejudice substantial rights of the defendant, see U.S. v. Vera, 701 F. 2d 1349, 1361 (11th Cir.1983), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a continuance.

AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

United States v. Concepcion Mena, 863 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1989)

…ings.” Stone, 604 F. 2d at 925 (Fed.R. Evid. 803(8)(A) “is designed to allow admission of official records and reports prepared by an agency or government office for purposes independent of specific litigation”). Cf. United States v. Herrera-Britto, 739 F. 2d 551, 552 (11th Cir.1984) (document from Honduran navy verifying non-registration of vessel admitted under Fed. R.Evid. 803(10), “Absence of public record or entry”); United States v. Martinez, 700 F. 2d 1358, 1364-65 (11th Cir.1983). Defendants also as…
United States v. Metzger, 778 F.2d 1195 (6th Cir. 1985)

…s against him. Although we have not addressed this issue, other circuits have concluded that the use of documents to show the absence of public record or entry is not violative of the confrontation clause. See, e.g., United States v. Herrera-Britto, 739 F. 2d 551, 552 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Wilson, 732 F. 2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 609, 83 L.Ed.2d 718 (1984); United States v. Lee, 589 F. 2d 980, 986-89 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed.2d…

Authorities Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982)
Kinney et ux. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 460 U.S. 1086 (U.S. 1983)
Buckley v. United States, 460 U.S. 1086 (U.S. 1983)
United States v. LEE, 694 F.2d 649 (11th Cir. 1983)
United States v. Marino Sanchez Martinez, 700 F.2d 1358 (11th Cir. 1983)
Evans v. Zimmerman, 459 U.S. 1114 (U.S. 1983)
Flynn v. Me. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 459 U.S. 1114 (U.S. 1983)
United States v. Hall, 716 F.2d 826 (11th Cir. 1983)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw