United States v. Mandujano

Facts

Alfonso Cavalier, a San Antonio police officer assigned to the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, worked undercover and represented himself as a narcotics trafficker. According to Cavalier's testimony, on March 29, 1973, he and a government informer went to the Tally-Ho Lounge, a bar in San Antonio, where the informer introduced him to Roy Mandujano. Mandujano asked the informer if he was looking for “stuff.” Cavalier said yes and told Mandujano he wanted an ounce sample of heroin. Mandujano answered that he had good brown Mexican heroin for $650.00 an ounce, but Cavalier would have to wait until later in the afternoon, when the regular man made his deliveries. Cavalier did not want to wait. Mandujano made four telephone calls in an apparent effort to find another source, but they appeared unsuccessful. He then said he had a good contact who kept narcotics around his home, but he would need the money in advance. He said he would not jeopardize his wife or his business for $650.00, and Cavalier counted out $650.00 to him. Mandujano left at about 3:30 P.M. About an hour later he returned, said he could not locate his contact, and gave the money back. Cavalier's later calls at 6:00 and 6:30 did not reach Mandujano. The parties agreed that no heroin changed hands. A second agent testified that he saw Mandujano drive off and that his surveillance team lost him in traffic.

Issues

1. Under 21 U.S.C. § 846, what must the government prove to show an attempt to commit a drug offense, and how does a court tell mere preparation from an attempt?
2. Was the evidence enough to convict Mandujano of attempted distribution of heroin, even though no heroin changed hands and his claimed source was never shown to exist?
3. Did the trial court err in admitting the agent's explanation of the word “stuff” and his statement about why he did not try to contact Mandujano again?

Holding

The evidence supported the conviction. The jury could find that Mandujano acted knowingly and intentionally, and that requesting and receiving $650.00 was a substantial step toward distributing heroin, which in the circumstances of this case could be found strongly corroborative of the firmness of his intent. Proof that his contact existed was not essential. The evidentiary rulings were not error.