United States v. Jewell
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 27, 1976 · Core case
Full citation
United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.
United States
governmentappellee
Jewell
driverappellant
Brief
Facts
Jewell entered the United States driving an automobile in which 110 pounds of marihuana worth $6,250 had been concealed in a secret compartment between the trunk and the rear seat. He testified that he did not know the marihuana was there. By his account, he and a friend had driven a rented car to Mexico. In a Tijuana bar, a stranger called Ray offered to sell them marihuana and, when they declined, asked if they wanted to drive a car back to Los Angeles for $100. The friend wanted no part of it because it did not sound right, but Jewell accepted. A federal drug agent testified that Jewell said he thought there was probably something illegal in the vehicle, but he checked the glove box, under the front seat and the trunk, found nothing, and assumed border officers would find nothing either. Jewell testified that he saw a void in the trunk but did not know what it was and did not investigate further. When a customs agent asked about the compartment, Jewell said it was in the car when he got it. The court said the jury could infer positive knowledge, or could find that Jewell deliberately avoided positive knowledge to avoid responsibility if caught.
Issue
Does the statutory requirement that a defendant act knowingly require proof of positive knowledge, or is it satisfied by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of a high probability that contraband was present and consciously avoided learning the truth?
Holding
The word knowingly in these drug statutes is not limited to positive knowledge, so the trial court properly refused Jewell's positive-knowledge instruction. Its conscious-purpose instruction was not reversible error. It should have stated more directly that knowledge requires awareness of a high probability and is defeated by an actual contrary belief, but it implied both, and Jewell did not object on that ground, so there was no plain error.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/united-states-v-jewell