Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantjury instructions
precedentappealjury instructions

Related Cases

Orocio; U.S. v.
View Case »
Kosak v. Devine
View Case »
University of Miami; Administrator, Wage and Hour Division v., Miller Sch. of Medical
View Case »
Togonon v. Garland
View Case »
Valdez, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Florentino-Rosario; U.S. v.

Facts

Florentino-Rosario was apprehended at a Puerto Rico airport in September 2019 after illegally entering the U.S. by sea. He was removed to the Dominican Republic but later attempted to reenter the U.S. by boat, which was intercepted by authorities. He admitted to paying for passage on the boat and acknowledged that he had no legal right to be in the U.S. He was charged with attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a).

Florentino-Rosario was apprehended at a Puerto Rico airport in September 2019 after illegally entering the U.S. by sea. He was removed to the Dominican Republic but later attempted to reenter the U.S. by boat, which was intercepted by authorities. He admitted to paying for passage on the boat and acknowledged that he had no legal right to be in the U.S. He was charged with attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a).

Issue

Did the district court err in refusing to give Florentino-Rosario's requested jury instructions regarding specific intent and the defense of duress?

Did the district court err in refusing to give Florentino-Rosario's requested jury instructions regarding specific intent and the defense of duress?

Rule

The court applied the principle that attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326 is a general intent crime, not requiring proof of specific intent. The court also noted that a defendant must make a threshold showing of duress to present that defense.

Leaving aside these deficiencies in Florentino-Rosario's appeal, his underlying argument is incorrect because our own and other circuits' precedents lead us to conclude that attempted reentry under 1326 is a general intent, and not a specific intent, crime.

Analysis

The court found that the district court's jury instructions substantially incorporated Florentino-Rosario's requested instructions and that he had admitted to knowing he was reentering the U.S. after being removed, satisfying the intent requirement. Additionally, the court ruled that Florentino-Rosario failed to demonstrate a threshold showing of duress, as required to present that defense.

The court found that the district court's jury instructions substantially incorporated Florentino-Rosario's requested instructions and that he had admitted to knowing he was reentering the U.S. after being removed, satisfying the intent requirement. Additionally, the court ruled that Florentino-Rosario failed to demonstrate a threshold showing of duress, as required to present that defense.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that there was no error in the jury instructions and that the evidence supported the conviction.

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that there was no error in the jury instructions and that the evidence supported the conviction.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found no error in the district court's handling of jury instructions and the rejection of the duress defense.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found no error in the district court's handling of jury instructions and the rejection of the duress defense.

You must be