United States v. Hernandez ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50791
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RITA HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-544-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rita Hernandez (“Hernandez”) appeals her conviction for
importation of cocaine. Hernandez challenges the “knowledge”
element of the offense, asserting that there was insufficient
evidence for the jury to find that she knew of the cocaine hidden
in the vehicle.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50791
-2-
jury’s verdict, and affirms if a rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 408
(5th Cir. 1998). When drugs are contained in a hidden
compartment in a vehicle, this court requires “evidence
indicating knowledge -- circumstances evidencing a
consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant.” United
States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990).
Considered together, circumstances such as nervousness,
conflicting statements to inspection officials, and an
implausible story may adequately establish consciousness of
guilt. Id. at 954-55.
After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that
there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to
find that Hernandez knew of the hidden cocaine. Factors
supporting this conclusion include: descriptions of Hernandez’s
odd behavior by the investigating agents; her statements that
clearly conflict with her own prior statements and the testimony
of other witnesses; and her implausible explanation for the
purpose of her trip into Mexico.
Therefore, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.